Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Metal Products (Destination)

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in accordance with his new plans, he will publish revised estimates of the various destinations of the products of the metal industries given in paragraphs 74–80 of the Economic Survey of 1952.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): Since the estimates referred to relate mainly to the calendar year 1952, they are not likely to be seriously affected by any new plans made since the publication of the Economic Survey. It is clear, however, that the eventual reduction in civil investment in plant, machinery and vehicles will be considerably less than the Survey estimated. This is mainly because home deliveries of motor vehicles have been higher than allowed for.

Mr. Jenkins: Will not the changes which the right hon. Gentleman announced in the defence debate on 29th July have a certain effect on the destinations of the products of the metal industries?

Mr. Butler: I cannot go further than the answer which I have given, although, of course, all these different adjustments will appear as future figures are brought out.

Government Advertisements

Sir Edward Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement about the action he has taken to reduce the length of Government advertisements.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Treasury issued a circular to all Government Departments

on this subject in August. I hope that economies will result, but it is too early yet to assess them.

Sir E. Keeling: Can my right hon. Friend say whether one officer in each Department is made responsible for seeing that advertisements are as short and as cheap as possible?

Mr. Butler: I cannot interfere with the domestic habits of different Departments but, as far as I am concerned, the more economy that there is in advertising and other matters the better.

Burma (Debts to U.K.)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums of money have been given to Burma since 1945; and what amount is owed by Burma to Great Britain.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his Question of 21st April by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs.

Industrial Building

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to achieve the bigger factory building programme for 1953.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Licences are to be issued for more industrial building, particularly for projects which will assist the balance of payments. The allocation of steel for factory building is to be raised, but it will still be necessary to adopt modern methods of construction which save steel.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this increased factory building programme is to be at the expense of other forms of building or is to be brought about by devoting a greater total of the national resources to the building industry as a whole?

Mr. Butler: There have, of course, to be adjustments in the total building programme to make this possible. As to the latter part of the supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman may be satisfied that the total building programme is within the scope of what I think the country can afford.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much this will interfere with the Government's housing programme?

Mr. Butler: The Government propose to go ahead with their housing programme and achieve results very much more remarkable for the families of Great Britain than those achieved by the late Administration.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind, when planning the programme, that there is still a great deal of apprehension about any cessation of factory building in Scotland in case unemployment develops still further?

Mr. Butler: I am glad that the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) asked this Question. Nothing is more important to our country than to develop factory buildings and to develop productive industry in the interests not only of exports but also of home employment.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will priority still be given to the Development Areas as a whole in this programme?

Mr. Butler: As the hon. Member knows, the Development Areas have special terms and their needs will certainly not be forgotten.

Postal Charges (Purchase Tax)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider abolishing the system by which the cost of postage is added to the value of the article purchased by a retailer, for the purpose of calculating Purchase Tax.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 10th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch). This matter is now being considered by the Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Frederick Grant, Q.C., who are looking into the rules for Purchase Tax valuation.

Mr. Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a tax which appears to discriminate between those who can fetch an article and those who have to have it sent to them by post is rather unfair?

Mr. Butler: That is one of the reasons why the whole matter is being investigated.

£ Sterling (Purchasing Value)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the purchasing power of the £ has varied during the past year.

Mr. R. A. Butler: On the basis of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, the internal purchasing power of the £ fell by 1s. 3d., during the year to September, 1952, the latest date for which figures are available.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not clear that there is no hope, or not much hope, of arresting this depression in the value of the £ so long as the fall in production which has taken place since the present Government took office is allowed to continue?

Mr. Butler: On the other hand, there are signs that, except in the case of food prices, which can be attributed to certain action taken last March—[Interruption.]—which I have always openly acknowledged—there are signs that the interim index is going down in certain respects, as the hon. and gallant Member will see from today's newspapers.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman take comfort from the fact that this fall is due to the deliberate action of the Government?

Mr. Butler: I do not attribute everything to the Government any more than the right hon. Gentleman would attribute everything to himself when he was in office. I will say this, that the rise in the Interim Index of Retail Prices in the first eight months of this year was a good deal less than in the corresponding period of 1951.

Mr. Jay: But is it not a fact that the August index does not take account of the big rise in food prices in the first week of October, and is not that misleading?

Mr. Butler: No, I have no intention of misleading the House, nor the right hon. Gentleman. When the index is next published, it will naturally reflect the increase in food prices which took place in October.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that while there have been price increases in previous years. Britain in those years was always doing


better than other countries, whereas this year we appear to be leading the world as far as price increases are concerned, which is a thing that never happened under the late Government?

Mr. Butler: I think that is an oversimplification of the situation. I think that Great Britain is doing pretty well in regard to her balance of payments, considering the burden we are bearing. In that respect, at any rate, Britain is leading the world.

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what, taking 1945 as 20s., was the purchasing power of the £ in November, 1951, and at the latest convenient date.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The internal purchasing power of the £ was 14s. 3d. in November, 1951, and 13s. 6d. in September, 1952, based on the National Income White Paper price index for all consumers' goods and services for the period 1945–51, and the Ministry of Labour Interim Index of Retail Prices for the period January to September, 1952.

Dr. King: Is that what the right hon. Gentleman means by "repairing the hole in the £"?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have nothing to add to the very full answers which my right hon. Friend gave to Questions Nos. 7 and 19.

Import Cuts

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revised estimate he had made, in view of the import cut announced on 29th July, of the figure of £100 million as the amount by which imports in 1952 are to be reduced as against imports in 1951.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In his speech on the 30th July my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade estimated that imports in 1952 would be reduced by some £400 million in comparison with imports in 1951. I see no reason to vary that estimate.

National Income (Distribution)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the national income went to the richest tenth

and to the poorest half of the nation in 1936, 1949 and 1951, respectively, both before and after taxation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Pre-war figures are not available, except for 1938, and the most recent post-war figures relate to 1950. My reply is therefore confined to these years. The following are the best estimates I can give of the proportions asked for, expressed as percentages of the total of incomes received by individuals.

—
Richest tenth
Poorest half




Before tax
After tax
Before tax
After tax




per cent.
per cent.
per cent.
per cent


1938
…
40
36
23
24·5


1950
…
34
28
21
24

In reading these figures, the following points should be noted:

(a) Not all the national income can be allocated to individuals (e.g., the undistributed profit of companies) and the figures given refer only to incomes actually received by individuals which can be allocated into income ranges.
(b) The "richest tenth" has been understood to mean the tenth who had the highest incomes among those who receive incomes, counting man and wife as one; the "poorest half" has been understood similarly.
(c) It will be appreciated that the percentages "before tax" relate to the total of incomes before tax, while those "after tax" relate to the substantially smaller total of personal income after tax.

Interest and Dividends

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately what proportion of the £596 million paid last year in interest and dividends went to Surtax payers and to stockholders not liable to Income Tax, respectively; and approximately how many people shared in the total amount.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It is estimated that about 40 per cent. of the dividends and interest paid by companies are received by Surtax payers and a further 10 per cent. by life assurance funds, charitable organisations and similar bodies. No


information is available as to the proportion received by persons not liable to Income Tax or the total number of recipients.

Mr. Osborne: Does the Chancellor mean by that that the net amount received by individuals will be considerably less than half the figure he gave last week and would represent about 4s. a week per wage earner if totally distributed to the wage earner?

Mr. Butler: I would hesitate to interfere with the calculations of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dalton: Is it not clear from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the greatest inequality still prevails if 40 per cent. of these dividends still accrue to the trifling minority of the population who pay Surtax?

Mr. Osborne: Is it not also true that if it were distributed to wage earners it would not represent 4s. a week?

National Galleries and Museums

Dr. Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a further statement on the closing of some sections of the national galleries and museums; and whether the Organisation and Methods Division has yet been able to suggest any alteration in staffing which will allow for normal opening.

Mr. R. A. Butler: After considering reports by the Organisation and Methods Division, I have authorised increases of two in the staff at the Tate Gallery and of three in the Wallace Collection and normal opening will be resumed as soon as the staff have been recruited. Reports on the National Maritime Museum and the British Museum are under consideration. Interim reports, which are under consideration, have been submitted on the Public Record Office, and the inquiry is continuing. At the Natural History Museum, it is not practicable at present to use the Mammal Gallery for exhibition purposes on account of projected reconstruction work. At Ham House, full opening is prevented by repairs.

Dr. Stross: Does the answer of the Chancellor mean that he, at any rate, realises that the original cut of £30,000 was hardly merited? Will he, on behalf of the whole nation, bear in mind in

future that small sums of money taken out of national expenditure may do grievous harm?

Mr. Butler: I should like to say this in return, that the original so-called cuts in the museums were done as part of the general reduction of the Civil Service. There was no intention to aim at the museums as such. I was not altogether happy at the spirit in which the cut was accepted, but I undertook to review it at the instance of the Financial Secretary, and I think the result has been that, within reason and with the aid of the Organisation and Methods Division, we have achieved a satisfactory settlement.

Dr. Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial grant was given to the national galleries and museums of Great Britain in 1938 and in 1951; and in what numbers the public made use of the facilities available in those years.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In 1938–39 and 1951–52 the sums amounted to £676,000 and £1,400,000, respectively. Figures for services furnished for the museums out of the Votes of other Government Departments cannot be ascertained with sufficient precision to provide a strict comparison, but they are of the order of £500,000 in 1938–39 and £1 million in 1951–52. There were over 7 million visitors in 1938 and nearly 6 million in 1951.

Dr. Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an estimate of the increase in expenditure that would be required so as to allow the British Museum, the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery to remain open each day till 9 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Assuming this would be practicable at all, a rough estimate of the cost is £75,000 a year, perhaps more.

Dr. Stross: Has the Chancellor noted that we close these great national institutions at just about the time when workers leave their factories and workshops, which gives them very little opportunity of looking at our national treasures? Would he consider, as a trial experiment, if only for one or two years, opening these places until nine o'clock?

Mr. Butler: I must remind the House and the hon. Member that this must


depend on the decision of the trustees concerned. It will involve a certain amount of extra difficulty over overtime and so forth, but it is a matter for the trustees. Perhaps the Question and the answer will result in having the matter aired.

Income Tax

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated cost of exempting from Income Tax all incomes under £250 per annum.

Mr. R. A. Butler: About £27 million. This includes the cost of the relief which, in order to prevent anomalies, it would be necessary to give to incomes slightly over £250 per annum.

Miss Ward: In view of Press reports at the time of the Budget about consideration being given to reduction of tax, might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will look into the position of these lower income groups and see whether any further help can be given to them to meet the difficulties in which they find themselves today?

Mr. Butler: I have every sympathy with these income groups, and I did do something to help them in my Budget, but whether I can do more depends on future developments.

Works of Art (Copyright Charges)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery and other nationally-owned galleries and museums to waive their copyright charges for reproductions of works of art by authors of scientific and artistic books and other works of scholarship.

Mr. R. A. Butler: They often do so, at their discretion.

Foreign Travel Allowance (Marine Insurance Congress)

Mr. Gough: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the fact that the currency allowance to British delegates to the annual Congress of the International Union of Marine Insurance, held at Knocke-Le-Zout, Belgium, between 1st September and 6th September, was inadequate, as a result of which the British representatives at this important conference were placed in a humiliating

position vis-à-vis the representatives of all the other nations present; and if he will increase the allowance for future congresses.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I understand that delegates to this conference were allowed £7 a day, which is the normal maximum rate for business conferences of this kind in Europe. Higher rates were allowed to certain officially appointed members of representative bodies because of their official duties. I cannot promise that a larger daily allotment will be available on a future occasion, although the amounts of exchange allowed to business travellers are now under review.

Mr. Gough: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to look into one or two individual cases where less than £7 a day was given? Will he accept my word for it that this is the most important conference in regard to marine insurance in the year and that the people who attend it are responsible people who would not waste the extra allowance?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly look into any case, and it is because of one or two considerations in relation to the different amounts of allowance that the whole matter is now under review. This is the time to send me information.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is the Chancellor aware that £7 a day is more than he allowed to the delegates to the Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union?

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is as much as engineers get in a week.

Mr. Butler: It depends on the broadness of the definition with which one defines the word "business."

Wireless Batteries (Tax)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will remove Purchase Tax from dry batteries used in wireless sets.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. I fear I cannot now make any statement on this subject.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the injustice which is inflicted on people living in the countryside where there is no means of using mains electricity? They pay Purchase Tax on wireless sets the same as on the ordinary


mains set, but every time a battery runs down they have to pay the additional Purchase Tax which people with an all-mains set do not have to pay.

Mr. Butler: I have been fully informed on that, but that does not alter the fact that on this question of taxation I cannot now make any statement.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many thousands of old people living in almshouses have no electrical installation and have to buy batteries for their sets? Poor people who are living where there is still no electrical installation and old age pensioners are very hard hit by this.

Farthings

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many farthings have been minted since 31st March last.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Seven hundred and eighty thousand.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Chancellor aware that this very substantial drop in the manufacture of farthings shows that he is not content to waste these coins because even the drapers have stopped demanding farthings in selling their particular wares?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I think this just about meets the situation, particularly in view of the decline in the export of farthings, which was causing me some anxiety.

Cost of Living

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the statistics recently published by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation showing that in the first half of 1952 the cost of living rose more in Britain than in any other Organisation for European Economic Co-operation country, including the United States of America and Canada; whether he accepts the validity of these figures; and what special steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to fight the rising cost of living.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am aware of these figures. In spite of the rise in food prices due to the reduction of subsidies, the

increase in the Interim Index of Retail Prices in the United Kingdom in the first eight months of this year (5½ per cent.) was less than in the corresponding period of 1951 (9½ per cent.).
The last of the increases in food prices associated with the Budget changes has now been announced, and as far as import prices are concerned I hope that the prospects are for stability.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the period of the late Government, when world prices were rising at a very fast rate indeed, the cost of living in this country rose less than in most other countries, but in the first six months of this year, with many world prices falling, the Government had succeeded in bringing about a situation in which the cost of living has risen more than in other countries?

Mr. Butler: I am aware that the cost of the living index has risen considerably less—4 per cent. less—in the first eight months of this year than in the first eight months of 1951. Further, the House must also be aware that one of the main reasons for the change was some changes that were deliberately introduced in the Budget, which have been compensated for, as the House well knows, by many forms of relief to many sections of the population. In the circumstances, and in view of the present level of the terms of trade, I have hopes of a prospect of stability, to which I referred in my original answer.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if it had not been for the valuable action taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer there would have been no cost of living at all because there would have been no living?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The hon. Lady is quite correct. If we had allowed the value of the £ to be lowered, due to a decline in our balance of payments position and in our reserves, we should certainly have been faced with a devaluation, increased costs of our raw materials, danger of unemployment, danger of losing much of the food that we must get from abroad and a danger of starvation.

Mr. Bottomley: In view of the fact that food and raw material prices are 10 per cent. down compared with this time last


year, ought not the Government to be able to give some indication of when a fall in the cost of living is to operate?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that any Chancellor of the Exchequer would be wise to forecast these matters, because he might raise false hopes in the minds of many people to whom these matters are questions of life and death. All I can say is what I said in my original answer with absolute sincerity, that we may have reached a more stable position and recent signs in the index, as taken this month, show that there are certain tendencies towards reduction.

Foreign Currency Earnings (British Patents)

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent information is available with regard to the amount of revenue received by this country from overseas in respect of licences to manufacture various British-patented products; and whether he will consider publishing figures dividing such revenue according to the various trades concerned.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I regret that no separate record is kept of foreign currency earnings from this source.

Defence Expenditure

Sir R. Acland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, to the nearest £100 million per annum, is the rate at which the country is now spending money on defence.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The current year's Defence budget, in the broad terms asked for, is £1,500 million.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the Government are spending more or less this year than was spent last year?

Mr. Butler: The current year bears out the estimate, which I have already given in public, of a figure approximately the same as I have mentioned. I am not forecasting what next year's expenditure will be.

Mr. Shinwell: But have not representative spokesmen of the Government claimed that the Government intended to spend less on defence this year than was spent last year, and do not these figures indicate the reverse?

Mr. Butler: No, they indicate, as is, I hope, usual in the administration which I attempt to carry out, that what I forecast is proving to be correct.

Sir R. Acland: If the answer was an estimate of what the rate of expenditure was to be, can the Chancellor say whether current experience shows that that is about the rate at which we are now spending?

Mr. Butler: As I have said on another occasion, the Exchequer returns indicate that in the first quarter of this year defence expenditure was somewhat up and that in the second quarter it was declining; and I anticipate that for the year it should work out broadly as I have stated.

Fuel and Power Policy

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange to publish in abbreviated form in HANSARD, or in other convenient form, the evidence submitted to the Ridley Committee on national policy for the use of fuel and power resources, by the Board of Inland Revenue, and referred to on page 236 of the Committee's Report, Command Paper No. 8647, in view of the publication of the evidence submitted by both the Federation of British Industries and the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The evidence referred to was a memorandum dealing with a specific question raised by a member of the Ridley Committee and was of quite a different character from the evidence on fuel policy submitted by the Federation of British Industries and the Trades Union Congress. I do not think the memorandum is of sufficient general interest to call for publication.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the fundamental importance of a fiscal reform in connection with these fuel efficiency matters, would my right hon. Friend consider placing the memorandum to which he has referred in the Library of the House before our debate next Wednesday in order that all hon. Members may be informed on the particular points made by the Board of Inland Revenue?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly look into that possibility.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since the Ridley Committee estimated that industry might


be able to save as much as 12 million tons of coal, which would make an immense difference to our balance of payments, and since their main proposal to that end was a financial inducement to industry, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it desirable that the evidence of the Board of Inland Revenue should be available to Parliament?

Mr. Butler: This was not general evidence by the Board of Inland Revenue but was in reply to a specific question by a member of the Committee, so that it really has not quite the importance which my hon. Friend imagines. Nevertheless, I will certainly see whether we can tear the mystery from this document.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I press the Chancellor? Did not the Board of Inland Revenue give evidence on the financial inducement to which I have referred?

Mr. Butler: The Board of Inland Revenue gave certain evidence, but that is not referred to in this Question.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking in connection with fiscal and financial proposals made by the Ridley Committee on national policy for the use of fuel and power resources, Command Paper No. 8647.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am examining these proposals together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the imminence of the debate next Wednesday on this very important subject, and the fact that in past debates we have had only representatives of the Ministry of Fuel and Power on the Front Bench, would it be possible for a representative of the Treasury to listen particularly to debates which affect these financial and fiscal proposals?

Mr. Butler: The Treasury is both farseeing and well informed, and if I can take the opportunity, as a Member of the Treasury, to be even better informed about this matter, I will certainly pay attention to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Chancellor's answer mean that he intends to give some encouragement in the industrial field to the saving of fuel?

Mr. Butler: This matter might have come up on the Finance Act had some proposal which was in order been moved. It is a matter of great interest to me, but there are difficulties which I cannot detail in answer to a Question. If the right hon. Gentleman would care to put down a Question or have a conversation with me, I will tell him some of the problems.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Chancellor remember that just before the Recess we had a debate in this House on a Friday afternoon, when there was complete unanimity about the seriousness of this situation? Will the Chancellor give an undertaking that between now and next week's debate he will consult the responsible Ministers with a view to taking some concrete action?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly pay attention to the hon. Member's point of view. It is clear that by this way of saving we can help to ease the very serious fuel problem and eventually our exports, so obviously it is a matter of first importance.

Inland Revenue (Evidence)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the submitting of evidence by the Board of Inland Revenue to committees appointed by Her Majesty's Government; and why such evidence was submitted by the Board of Inland Revenue to the Ridley Committee and refused in the case of the Gowers Committee.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Written evidence was submitted to both Committees by the Board of Inland Revenue, who are always ready to supply information to Government committees about current tax law and practice. It is sometimes considered, as in the case of the Gowers Committee, that it is undesirable for the Board to give evidence, and particularly oral evidence, on major changes in taxation policy.

Government Industrial Employees (Wages)

Mr. Lee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant to its industrial employees the 10 per cent. cost of living increase in wages and salaries accorded to the Civil Service.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the recent grant to non-industrial civil servants of a pay increase broadly comparable with those already obtained up to the end of 1951 by workers generally in other occupations. It would not be appropriate to extend this pay addition to industrial employees whose wages are determined by reference to the approved rates for the individual trades concerned in outside industry and who have already received suitable increases on this basis.

Mr. Lee: Would not the Chancellor agree he has just told the House that during the last 12 months the £ has fallen by some 1s. 3d. in value; that requests for negotiations for increased wages have taken place many months ago, and that if he wants to maintain increased production at the pace he asked for he must do something about it?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, but the Question related to industrial employees, whose case has been considered through the ordinary machinery and the ordinary channels relating to their individual trades; which is the answer to the Question.

Sir W. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that to increase wages now does no good to the recipients or the country?

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is not true.

Sir W. Smithers: It simply means printing more pieces of paper which we cannot eat or wear.

Gold (Monetary Price)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he made at the recent meeting of the International Monetary Fund to obtain agreement to an advance in the price of monetary gold fixed at Bretton Woods to a figure more in keeping with the realities of today, in view of the fact that 75 per cent. of the gold of the world produced outside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is produced in the sterling area and that the present price affords an insufficient cushion on which to conduct world trade.

Mr. R. A. Butler: None, Sir; but speeches in favour of a higher monetary price for gold were made by the representatives of South Africa and Australia.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I know that, but does that mean that the Government have no views on this subject? Is it not ridiculous that gold should maintain the same dollar value when the cost of production has gone up proportionately with the production of other things?

Mr. Butler: The main producers of gold, so far as we are concerned, are the two countries concerned, South Africa and Australia. Their case on this matter was put very eloquently, and I have nothing to add at this stage on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Stokes: But will the Chancellor give his mind to the latter part of the Question? How does he expect to continue to carry on international trade on a dollar-gold basis unless he allows the cushion to become large enough to take up the shocks?

Mr. Butler: That, of course, is a matter which requires a great deal of discussion, and is a matter upon which the American Secretary to the Treasury has already stated his opinion.

Mr. Stokes: I do not agree with it.

Mr. Butler: I dare say, but I have nothing to say on behalf of Her Majesty's Government at the present time.

National Production

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the fall in national production since the last Budget; and what action he proposes to take by way of incentive or other means to improve the level of productivity.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The figures for production during the summer months are always rather unreliable, but it is clear that they do indicate some decline below the levels forecast last March. Certain incentives have been given, but the broad general problem remains one for industry backed in every way possible by the Government and public opinion.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but is the Chancellor aware that the very small reliefs he gave to the workers in the Budget have been completely wiped out by the rapid rise in the cost of living? Is he aware that the easiest and speediest way of getting the workers to produce more is to carry out the Tory promise to reduce the cost of living, and when is he going to do something about that?

Mr. Butler: Except in the respects to which I have referred earlier, there are signs—as I have said several times this afternoon—that the cost of living index is showing signs of being actually reduced, which is a very satisfactory development and one which I see no reason to suppose may not continue.

Mr. Shinwell: As the Question relates not so much to the cost of living as to increased productivity, and in view of the declaration at the recent Conservative Party conference about the need for increased production, can the right hon. Gentleman say in a sentence or two what the Government really intend to do in a specific form to increase production?

Mr. Butler: The first thing the Government realise is that increased production depends upon those who guide industry, and particularly upon the efforts of the workers in industry who have, on the whole, such a fine record to their credit; and anything that can be done in those quarters will be backed by the Government. Every possible incentive will be borne in mind, and the right hon. Gentleman may be quite satisfied that it is a matter of first-class importance to the Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Do we understand from that answer, quite clearly and unequivocally, that the Government themselves will do nothing in the matter, except to wait and see what the workers do and what the employers do? Is that the position?

Mr. Butler: No. The right hon. Gentleman has a quality for over-simplifying subjects and then distorting their meaning. What I do mean is that Her Majesty's Government, as at present constituted, have no intention of trying to run industry, or the lives of the workers, or their work for them, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman and his friends would wish to do. What we do say is this, taking one example; had it not been for the promise of extra supplies of steel, which we shall be getting from the American Continent, it would not be possible to look for a future improvement in production due to that particular raw material.

Brazil Nuts (Imports)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the prospective

shortage of some kinds of nuts, particularly Brazil nuts, during the forthcoming Christmas season; and whether, in view of the fact that Brazil under present circumstances is finding it extremely difficult to obtain sterling to pay for the substantial British exports received by her, he will reconsider the restriction imposed on the import of Brazil nuts and other Brazilian food produce into this country as a matter of urgency.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In order to right our balance of payments it has been necessary to impose restrictions upon the import of many commodities, including nuts. Supplies will necessarily be somewhat less this year than last. Within the total quotas for particular commodities, there is no limit on the amount which can be spent in individual countries, including Brazil. I consider it premature to relax any of these restrictions at present.

Mr. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Brazil nuts are amongst the most nutritious foodstuffs one can get, and in the circumstances could not he make a special case of this matter?

Mr. Butler: Well, I will see what I can do, but I think there are other nutritive foods as well.

Mr. Follick: Is the Chancellor aware that it would be a boon to British shipping on the Amazon if this restriction were withdrawn? Is he not aware that a very fine new ship of the Booth Line, the "Hildebrand," could find only 600 tons of freight this month to return to this country and that the withdrawing of this restriction on Brazil nuts would go a long way to remedy their very difficult situation.

Mr. Butler: I have every desire to see the trade between this country and Latin America, and the shipping which provides and helps that trade, improved, and the hon. Member may rest assured that we shall do all we can.

New Coins

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the first coins bearing the head of Her Majesty the Queen will be issued.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The design of coinage comes within the Royal Prerogative. I understand that it is probable


that the Royal Proclamation prescribing the designs of the new coinage may be issued before the end of this year, in which case specimens may be expected to be available before the Coronation.

Sir I. Fraser: Having regard to the Royal Prerogative, cannot the Government do everything possible to devise that these new products shall be available for certain, and not doubtfully?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the first part of my answer to my hon. Friend, I cannot give any precise answer to that, other than to say that the importance of the matter is very much borne in mind.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is the fact that Her Majesty will not be the Defender of the Faith until after the Coronation, and that therefore the coinage cannot properly be produced until after that date?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If that were a question for me, it would, none the less, not arise on this Question.

Post-War Credits (Personal Case)

Mr. Glanville: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the case, he will authorise the payment of post-war credits of the late Miss Peggy Dowson, particulars of which have been supplied to him, to the widowed mother of Miss Dowson who is responsible for the care and maintenance of her late daughter's child.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Though I feel great sympathy with the people concerned, payment of post-war credit is not by law due in this case, and I have no power to authorise payment.

Mr. Glanville: While thanking the Minister for his sympathy, may I ask him if, in view of the special circumstances attaching to this case, which I have outlined in a letter to him, he can agree to pay the credits to the mother of the girl who died?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have already explained to the hon. Member, though I fully share his sympathy with the circumstances of this distressing case, I have no authority whatsoever to authorise a payment not authorised by law.

Mr. Glanville: But could not the Minister seek authority?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many Statutory Instruments have lapsed or been annulled since 1st November. 1951.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Up to 16th October, 1952, 1,024 of general application.

Mr. Lee: May I ask the Minister how many have been initiated?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question on the Order Paper, but I can none the less reassure him that the figures will disclose a reasonably satisfactory deficit.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Gypsy Survey, Kent

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made in Kent in taking the gypsy survey.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am informed that the survey has been completed, and that the county council intend to issue a report early next month.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a report to be placed in the Library, and does he not realise by now that the worsening treatment of gypsies is, in some respects, even more cruel than under the segregation laws of Dr. Malan?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman asks me whether I have had a survey made. The county council have made it, and I think it is only reasonable to wait until their report is published.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the lives of these friends of mine will not in any way be interfered with, because they are such fine examples of free enterprise?

Building Licence, Manchester

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the value of the work authorised by licence for the new Woolworth building on the Deansgate—Mary's Gate, Manchester, site.

Mr. H. Macmillan: £130,000, in 1952.

Mr. Boardman: Is the Minister aware that there is already a large Woolworth store within a few hundred yards of this one? Is he further aware that this very unnecessary building is gobbling up steel in Lancashire at a time when new industrial buildings in Lancashire are being held up through the shortage of steel; and is he further aware that members of the local authorities in the Manchester and Salford areas are complaining about the delay in the building of flats because of the shortage of steel? Will he not see that this building is stopped at once?

Mr. Macmillan: This is a rather different angle of approach than that which is ordinarily found from hon. Members representing blitzed cities. This is a case where, out of the allocation given to the corporation, they have decided to spend it on shops or on the restoration of property which they think will be beneficial to their rateable value. I am glad to have that admirable statement of the other side of the problem, which has to be borne in mind.

Hon. Members: Answer the question.

Mr. Boardman: Will not the Minister give an assurance that he will have the matter looked into? Is he aware that, in this connection, I recently received from his Department the most ridiculous letter that surely came out of a Government Department, showing that his officials obviously had not read the letter which the hon. Member had sent them? Will not the Minister have the matter investigated?

Mr. Macmillan: I have a lively recollection of the correspondence we have had, and whether the hon. Gentleman's description of my reply or the original letter is right or not is a matter that we must leave for others to judge. All I can say is that, on this matter, certain allocations are made to the corporation to repair the bomb damage, and this is a very unusual case of objection being taken to my Department having made too big an allocation.

Sewerage Development, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the urgent need for the development of sewerage in the rural district of Newcastle-under-Lyme; and what steps he is taking to assist the local authority to undertake such development.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Schemes put forward by the council are under consideration.

Mr. Swingler: Does the answer mean that the Minister has not rejected the scheme put forward by the local authorities?

Mr. Macmillan: In the first case, the local investigation into the scheme was made only on the 14th of this month, and I am awaiting a report. Of course, I shall not decide until reports are received from the experts I have consulted.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is the Minister aware that raw sewage comes up from the drains into the dwelling-houses in Winter-ton in my constituency, and that £2,000 worth of work would be sufficient to put it right, and will be not give the greatest possible consideration to that proposal?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir; I am very grateful for the information given by the hon. and learned Gentleman and should be glad to meet him at a convenient opportunity.

Sewerage Works, Herts (Apportionment of Costs)

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when a decision is to be taken and promulgated in regard to the proportions in which the cost is to be borne for the Harlow Trunk Sewer, the Stevenage Trunk Sewer, and the Rye Meads Sewage Disposal Works.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am afraid that I cannot say how long it will take to settle this. Many interests are involved. Meanwhile, the actual work is going ahead.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this important matter has been hanging about for a long time both with this Government and the last, and will he bear in mind the great


embarrassment caused to local authorities in Hertfordshire owing to the uncertainty in regard to the apportionment of the costs of these projects?

Mr. Macmillan: It is, of course, an important matter, but I think it is quite clear that it is a very complicated one to settle: perhaps, what is more important, the work has not been delayed.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, but will my right hon. Friend have regard to the general context of this matter, which is a feeling in Hertfordshire that the arrival of the new towns is going to involve great financial liabilities for the existing population?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir.

Bombed Cities (Reconstruction)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the national sympathy for the bombed towns of Britain, he will increase the aid given to these towns in their work of reconstruction.

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement as to the number of licences to be issued for reconstruction work in the bombed areas of Southampton during the remaining months of this year and the first six months of next year.

Mr. Foot: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he intends to make a statement on the amount of reconstruction work to be permitted in bombed cities under the capital investment programme.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I regret that I cannot yet add anything to the statement which I made in reply to Questions on this subject a week ago.

Mr. Morley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only two licences for reconstruction have been granted in Southampton this year as against five licences last year, that there are 23 traders in Southampton who have by-law and planning authorisation to proceed with the reconstruction of their blitzed premises, but cannot get a licence, and that not only members of the Labour Party, but members of the Conservative Party in Southampton are disgusted with his lack of action in this matter?

Mr. Macmillan: I hope to make a statement in due course, but, meanwhile, think I ought to put the hon. Gentleman in touch with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), who has been very angry with me today because I have given licences.

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole country was very pleased with the initiative he showed in the disaster at Lynmouth this summer, that the whole country responded to the appeal made on behalf of this post-war calamity, and will not he show some of the same initiative in appealing to the Cabinet, and, through the Government, give a lead to the country in further considering the very just claims of the blitzed cities which had the honour of standing in the front line during the last war?

Mr. Macmillan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind tribute, but he is aware of the opposite view so strongly held in other parts of his own party. I would point out that in this year. 1952, £1 million more work will be completed in the blitzed cities than in 1951.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Rent Tribunal, Dartford (Closure)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the dissatisfaction in north-west Kent at the closing of the Dartford Rent Tribunal office which operated in the thickly populated part of Kent; and why he has centralised this work at Maidstone.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I have received some representations on the matter. The work has been centralised at Maidstone on grounds of economy and convenience.

Mr. Dodds: How can the right hon. Gentleman plead the ground of economy when this office, in the first six months of this year, granted 616 interviews, and when it is considered that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works paid £525 for an Adam mantelpiece and only £500 for the office? Is that economy?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not see the connection between the two matters.

Mr. Janner: Will not the Minister give serious consideration to stopping this kind of action in order that the Rent Acts may not be destroyed? Is he aware that, in


West Cheshire already, instead of 41 applications being heard, as was the case three months ago, now only 13 people have been able to take advantage of that particular tribunal, since the number of tribunals has been reduced? Is it not really ridiculous, on the grounds of economy, at a time when we are supposed to be putting into effect measures for the protection of tenants?

Mr. Macmillan: The reason why the economy was made was because the number of applications at all of these tribunals had been steadily falling in recent years. On the other point, on which the hon. Gentleman came to see me the other day, I gathered that the question was not so much against concentration but as to where the location of the single office should be.

Mr. Dodds: Will not the Minister give the House accurate information? Is it not the case that he himself had so little time to give to the discussion that he does not know what were the points to be raised?

Mr. Bottomley: When the Minister talks about convenience, does he mean the convenience of this Department or that of the people in north-west Kent?

Mr. Macmillan: The general convenience of the public, having regard to the amount of business to be done.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why, in deciding to abolish the Dartford Rent Tribunal, it was considered unnecessary to consult with or inform the local authorities concerned of the proposal.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Because the cost of rent tribunals is met wholly from Exchequer funds and the responsibility for ensuring economy in administration is entirely mine. Local authorities were informed of the proposed amalgamation on 4th September last.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, before the Labour Government introduced them, they did have discussions with the local authority, but, now that the local authorities are being asked to provide experts in every office, as well as a room for the tribunals, can he wonder that they are annoyed at the high handed action in not discussing it with them before?

Mr. Macmillan: In accordance with the statute, the local authorities were consulted by my predecessor as to where these tribunals should be situated, but they were not consulted by either of my predecessors as to what should be the districts that were to be included in any particular area. I therefore followed precedent in this matter.

Mr. Pannell: Is the Minister aware that the local authorities were asked to co-operate, and that, in the case of one of them—the Erith local authority—it has provided for this tribunal over a period of years the free use of the council chamber and free tea for the members when the tribunal has been sitting, and that, generally speaking, they have attempted to co-operate in the most friendly way?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, having received such co-operation—[Interruption.] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite care nothing about rents or rent tribunals, but they might at least be silent. Does not the Minister think that it is reasonable that they should have been consulted before this tribunal was transferred to a place 40 miles away?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think there is any resentment in this matter. My relations with the local authorities, in this as in other matters, have been very happy, and I have done everything I can to help them in the normal way. I do not regard this as anything but a rather trumped-up agitation to suit a few hon. Members opposite.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the Minister's answer to this question inconsistent with the answer which he gave to the previous Question on the Order Paper? Surely, if what he has been considering was the public convenience, the local authorities ought to have been the first people to consult, whereas, if he is concerned only with economy, then it would be quite understandable why he should consult only the Treasury?

Mr. Macmillan: One is a matter of economy and the other one of convenience. When there are a large number of local authorities concerned, I have usually found that each thinks theirs is the one where the tribunal should be held.

Mr. Dodds: I beg to give notice that, owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Macmillan: I rather expected that.

Mr. Dodds: Why not tell the truth?

Rent Tribunals

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what review he has made, or proposes to make, of the procedure of rent tribunals.

Mr. H. Macmillan: None, Sir. But I am open to suggestions.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Does not my right hon. Friend think that in regard to the rent tribunals—this being a new and improvised form of justice in this country—some review of the procedure should be undertaken with a view to improving the contributions they make?

Mr. Macmillan: They are very important issues, and I am prepared to consider any points put to me.

Damaged House, Hornsey (Rebuilding)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further details have been received from the Hornsey Borough Council about their decision to permit the building of a house with a sale price of £9,850; and whether he is allowing this project to proceed.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The house was required to be set back to facilitate road widening. This, and the nature of the subsoil, made the foundations unusually costly. The foundations are already up to ground level. To avoid interfering with council housing, expensive materials are to be used for the rest of the rebuilding of this damaged house. In the special circumstances, I do not propose to intervene.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware of the extent of the expensive and luxury items going into the building of this house, that it is a public scandal locally that such a large amount has been authorised for one dwelling, that inaccurate information was given in the first place, and that if this amount of money was spread over several houses it would contribute to reducing Hornsey Council's long waiting list for houses?

Mr. Macmillan: There is one point I want to make clear. The use of expensive, unusual materials—hardwood floors and things of that kind—is beneficial to my housing programme, and that is why I insist upon it. It is not in competition with my programme. But I find—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree—that I am continually being pressed by hon. Members, and sometimes by the same hon. Members, in two contradictory directions—first, that I should give more authority and latitude to local authorities, on the one hand, and then that I should continually interfere with their detailed decisions on the other. I try to keep a balance, but I must say I lean towards local authority decisions, which I leave to them.

Price-Fixing Arrangements, London

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will investigate the price-fixing arrangements operated by the London Builders' Conference in respect of tenders to local authorities for building contracts.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will bear this in mind in considering matters for reference to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. P. Wells: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works has already conferred with the hon. Member for Faversham and with the Kent County architect on this matter as a result of which the action being taken was contemplated, action which will stop the unsocial activities of the London Builders' Conference in its regional branches?

Mr. Macmillan: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has paid this tribute to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION (RECOGNITION)

Commander Maitland: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider instituting some distinction in peace-time corresponding to a mention in dispatches in war-time to all those in agriculture, industry or commerce whose efforts to increase production are outstanding.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): There, is a considerable difference between peace and war. We seek to preserve peace and avoid war. If, nevertheless, war should be forced upon us, those who hazard or give their lives for the honour and survival of the nation stand in a special class. A confusion of thought upon these primary issues is to be deprecated. This in no way detracts from the value of the services rendered in agriculture, industry or commerce, I am not, however, at present convinced of the need to recommend to Her Majesty the institution of new awards as it is better to make use of the many existing forms of recognition.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD PEACE

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if he will give particulars of the dates on which he made approaches to Mr. Truman and Mr. Stalin for high level talks on international problems; and whether he will publish all correspondence relative to this matter.

The Prime Minister: I regret that no occasion has yet presented itself for such approaches, but I cannot feel that the responsibility for this falls either upon Great Britain or the United States.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the 1950 and 1951 Elections he promised the electorate that he would do what is contained in the Question? Are we to take it that this is another broken promise and that he has no intention of implementing it, that is was just thrown out to get a few votes for the Conservative Party?

The Prime Minister: We do not want to fight those Elections over again on a Question, and I have no intention of doing so. I think the moment may well have been lost when such approaches could have been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD AND RAIL TRANSPORT (CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider recommending the appointment of a Royal

Commission to investigate and report on all matters affecting the co-ordination of road and rail transport, and postpone the Government's proposals with regard to transport until this Commission's report has been received.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that two Royal Commissions have already come down against the proposals of the present Government and that a special committee under the chairmanship of the present Minister of State for Economic Affairs has come down against the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper? Will he say why he cannot adopt the suggestion contained in the Question, because no one in this country has a good word for his proposals so far as transport is concerned?

The Prime Minister: Two Royal Commissions have already reported without solving the difficulties. That can hardly be urged as an argument for appointing another one.

Mr. Ernest Davies: If the Prime Minister is unfavourably disposed to appointing a Royal Commission, will he acquaint himself at first hand with the excellent work which the road services are doing and disabuse himself of the completely erroneous ideas he has, particularly concerning the numbers employed on administrative work?

The Prime Minister: All these matters are going to be the subject of active and animated debate in this House. I do not see why we should try and take little chippings off the main topic in advance.

Mr. Shinwell: What difficulty does the Prime Minister expect to remove by denationalising road transport? Can he tell us? Do not wait for the debate, tell us now.

The Prime Minister: I have explained why I think the present state of waste and confusion, restriction and endless impediment should be brought to an end. [Interruption.] This is the first opportunity I have had of offering my condolences to the right hon. Gentleman on the result of the recent election.

KENYA (MAU MAU ACTIVITIES)

Mr. J. Johnson: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the sending of troops to Kenya.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): Yes, Sir. As the House is aware, a state of emergency was proclaimed in Kenya last night. This was done with my full knowledge and approval. Secrecy was essential if the ring-leaders were to be arrested quickly and outbreaks of violence avoided. The timing of the operation was therefore arranged to coincide with the arrival of the 1st Battalion, Lancashire Fusiliers from the Middle East.
There are two battalions of the King's African Rifles stationed in Kenya and one battalion and two companies of the King's African Rifles are being moved in from Uganda and Tanganyika, respectively. These troops have been brought in solely as a reserve and all action now being taken is by the Police. Until these troops had been brought in and the Police had taken action against the ring-leaders it would have been undesirable to refer to this plan.
Since the middle of September the situation has become progressively worse. Once, crimes were committed by stealth, but now law and order are challenged in broad daylight. Chief Waruhiu was murdered on the highway by a hired gunman who did not even know his victim. Firearms and gelignite continue to be stolen and fire-arms instead of knives are being increasingly used by the terrorists.
Mau Mau terrorism is carefully planned, centrally directed and its object is to destroy all authority other than Mau Mau. Its leaders are establishing their own courts in their attempt to usurp the functions of Government.
Action against these leaders was imperative. The ordinary process of the law is necessarily slow. In present conditions in Kenya it would have allowed time and opportunity for those behind the outrages to organise widespread disturbances in which numbers of innocent people might have been killed. The declaration of an emergency has enabled the Kenya Government to detain the ringleaders and their lieutenants, about 130 altogether. The prisoners will then be

screened and some may be released when the tension following the operation relaxes.
Since I have drafted this reply, I have received a telegram from the Governor, which I will read to the House:
Information received at 10.30 this morning 89 persons had been detained. Reports are still coming in. There was no resistance to arrest and up till now Nairobi has remained quiet and there has been no disorder either there or elsewhere in the Colony. The arrival of the British battalion flown in to act as a reserve went entirely according to plan. The Police carried out the operation most efficiently and in a manner which reflects credit on all ranks.
I am leaving for Kenya next week, not to discuss the present measures—which, as I have already made clear have my full support—but to see for myself what is happening and to consider, with the Governor, plans for the future development of the Colony. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a further statement as soon as possible after my return.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware of the keen anxiety on all sides of the House at the worsening situation and also of the keenest perplexity on this side of the House, at least, at the apparently sudden flaring up of disorder in the last few weeks? Is it not now apparent that there are wider social and economic causes besides the growth of Mau Mau? Will the Minister do all in his power to avoid any danger of racial conflict?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, that is why I made it clear in my previous statement that there are long-term problems of great urgency and gravity for Kenya which I hope will be examined in a calm and peaceful atmosphere by the Royal Commission, whose appointment I have already foreshadowed. Anything in the present emergency which should result in the worsening of racial relations is, of course, to be highly deplored.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we commend indeed his action in deciding to go himself to Kenya immediately? May I ask whether reports which appear in this afternoon's Press are true, that is that Jomo Kenyatta, the leader of the Kenya African Union, has been arrested? May I ask the Minister if any information is as yet forthcoming about this and whether he will make a statement as soon as possible?
This is the largest organisation of Africans in Kenya, and I think that it is of the utmost importance that the support of all Africans and Asians of all communities should be enlisted against this terrorist organisation, on the basis of racial co-operation. I am perturbed about this news, if it is true, lest it should convert an important African organisation and turn them against the Government.
Will the Minister, before he leaves at the beginning of next week for Kenya, consider this point—that if there is time I still urge the importance of a quick announcement of the membership of the Commission so that they can proceed. The Governor himself in his broadcast said that there are grievances and underlying causes. Whilst we join in putting down terrorism, it is very important that we should develop our colonial policy at the same time.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am very much in sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. These are merely the facts of the matter. I hope that the House will take it as a hope, without a commitment, that I shall be able to make a further announcement before I leave. With regard to the first part of the question, it is most necessary to say that the Kenya African Union, as such, is not being proscribed. The action is not in any sense political; but it is true that Jomo Kenyatta has been detained.

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad to learn that it is not the intention to proscribe the Kenya African Union. This is a most important organisation of Africans. If the leader has been arrested, may I gather that it is not because of association with this Union but for something else? If so, can that be made clear?

Mr. Lyttelton: Jomo Kenyatta has been arrested as an individual concerned with Mau Mau terrorism and he happens to be leader of the Kenya African Union which is not being proscribed.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the Minister aware that this early action will give very great encouragement to peoples of all communities, African, Indian and European? Can he tell the House to what extent certain trouble-making

minorities in this country have encouraged this trouble in Kenya and how long Mr. Kenyatta was being trained in Russia?

Mr. Lyttelton: The first thing is, of course, that I am glad of the opportunity of saying again and again that the great bulk of Africans have had nothing to do with these terrorist activities. I should be extremely diffident about ascribing any of these troubles to any statements made from this side of the world, though some of them admittedly have not been helpful.

Mr. Griffiths: May I ask the Colonial Secretary a question in view of the supplementary question which has been put to him? As I gather that Kenyatta has been arrested, presumably he will be or may be brought to trial. In view of that, is it not undesirable that a question of that kind should be asked in the House?

Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman must be content with the answer I gave on the subject. This and many other matters connected with these arrests, apart from judicial processes, are to be the subject of discussions between myself and the Governor when I reach Kenya.

Mr. Poole: Whilst all right-thinking people are desirous of lending support to putting down real terrorism, I would ask the Minister, in view of the fact that he says that 130 arrests have been made, whether that means that the identity of Mau Mau terrorists to the number of 130 are known—as they must have been—and how long the authorities in Kenya have known the identity of these people.

Mr. Lyttelton: These are not necessarily officially members of Mau Mau. These are the number of ringleaders and their lieutenants who have been arrested.

Mr. Teeling: In spite of all that has been said, should not my right hon. Friend let it be known that Mr. Kenyatta, no matter what his present feelings may be, has had to be arrested, because at every single Mau Mau meeting he has been named as their leader, to whom they should look and, indeed, as the person who should take the place of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Lyttelton: I should prefer to rest upon what I have said.

Mr. S. Silverman: When he makes his own personal visit next week, would the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to investigate the very authoritative statement published in our newspapers a day or two ago to the effect that the level of wages is such as to leave people who do not want to starve no option but to steal. The statement was expressly made in those words. The most effective contribution that could be made towards a settlement in the area would be the advance of native wages by one-third.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not going to commit myself to any answer to that statement at this moment, except to assure the hon. Gentleman that all economic facts in relation to the present state of affairs will be examined in the time available to me.

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH BILL [Lords.]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This short Bill has two main objects. The first is to amend the Cinematograph Act, 1909, so that it applies to any commercial cinema exhibitions, whatever the means used for showing the pictures. Secondly, it implements some of the recommendations of the recent Departmental Committee on children and the cinema.
Under the 1909 Act, licensing authorities are empowered to grant cinema licences
… on such terms and conditions and under such restrictions
as they see fit to impose. The courts in England and Wales have interpreted these powers very widely as relating not only to matters of safety but also to the character of the films shown. The Act of 1909 applies, however, only to exhibitions at which inflammable films are used and, although the meaning of the term "inflammable" has never been clearly decided by the courts, the great majority of licensing authorities have always proceeded on the view that the Act does not apply to exhibitions in which the types of films commonly known as noninflammable or slow-burning are used.
Such types of films have been used for many years in non-commercial exhibitions organised by film societies and educational and scientific bodies. Such exhibitions have not, therefore, been subject to control under this Act; but there are two recent developments in the use of non-inflammable film which I think the House ought to appreciate.
First, I shall deal with places which are not licensed as cinemas. The first development is that its use for exhibitions on a commercial basis in places which are not licensed as cinemas has been very great. According to recent figures, some 300,000 adults and 200,000 children paid for admission each week to exhibitions of this kind which are


given in halls in small towns or villages equipped with 16-mm. projectors or by mobile units operating for five or six nights every week. No control can be exercised by licensing authorities over the types of films shown in such exhibitions, so that an unaccompanied child may be able to see there, printed on noninflammable film, a copy of a film which he would not be allowed to see in a licensed cinema unless he were accompanied by a parent or guardian.
Turning to places which are licensed as cinemas, the second development of noninflammable film has been for use in them. I understand that the films shown in licensed cinemas are now printed on non-inflammable film and although it will be some time before existing stocks of inflammable films are exhausted, there are already some cinemas where only non-inflammable films are used, and there are soon to be many more. As the law now stands, such cinemas would not require a licence under the Act of 1909.
I think that all right hon. and hon. Members will see the importance of these aspects of the Bill. I put it to the House that both developments make it a matter of urgency that the law should be brought up to date.
With regard to Scotland, the position in regard to the powers of licensing authorities is rather different. There have been no decisions by the Scottish courts corresponding to those taken in England and Wales, and the Secretary of State for Scotland has informed licensing authorities that he is advised that the Scottish courts would be likely to hold that only safety conditions can be attached to licences granted under the Act of 1909.
It is quite true that by voluntary consent the Scottish exhibitors have observed the conditions about the showing of films normally imposed by the licensing authorities of England and Wales, with the exception—which is rather an important one—relating to the exclusion of unaccompanied children from showings of "A" films. I think everyone will agree that it is desirable that the licensing authorities in Scotland should have a general power to control the films shown, and the Bill amends the 1909 Act to make this power explicit.

Mr. John Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not be has found that the voluntary system, as worked in Scotland, is doing very well?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I did say that. It is doing well, and the Scottish exhibitors have observed broadly the conditions that are applied in England. It is an unfortunate difference that in England the licensing authorities should have the double power with regard to the safety and control of films, and that the Scottish view of the same Act should be that that power is limited to the question of safety. Therefore, as I have said, we propose to amend the Act to make it explicit that the present powers will include the questions of both safety and control.
The second object of the Bill, though it is not of such immediate urgency, is perhaps in the long run even more important. It is to implement some of the recommendations of the recent Departmental Committee on children and the cinema, appointed by the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor.
The Committee, whose Report was published in May, 1950, had as its Chairman Professor Wheare, Professor of Government and Public Administration at Oxford, and its 19 members were men and women drawn from all walks of life, many of them with children of their own. No one who has read their Report will fail to be impressed by the careful and thorough way in which the Committee examined the evidence submitted to them; by the great personal interest taken by the members in their work, as shown, among other things, by the many visits which they paid to children's cinema performances throughout the country; and also, I should like to say, by their impartial and detached approach to the problem.
It is all too easy to regard the influence of the cinema on children as wholly had and to see in it causes of juvenile misbehaviour which in reality go much deeper. The Committee have performed a most valuable public service by examining this aspect of this problem with particular care, and their conclusion that the evidence does not fasten on the cinema any primary share of responsibility for the delinquency or moral laxity of


children under 16 has been, in my view, borne out by other inquiries.
The uses of films for educational purposes are well known, but outside school hours the cinema is for children an entertainment, and it is right that it should be so. There is, however, much that can be done to improve the quality of the entertainment without in any way lessening the children's enjoyment. Much excellent work has already been done in this direction by the production of special films for children. It is very gratifying that, despite financial difficulties, British film producers are carrying on this work.
I hope that no one will think, because it certainly should not be thought, that the purpose of this Bill is to restrict the attendance of children at the cinema, with all the enjoyment and other advantages which it can give. It is rather to provide better methods of control over the cinema shows specially arranged for children, especially on Saturdays, which have achieved such popularity in recent years, and also over their attendance at ordinary cinemas.
The general scheme of the Bill follows the recommendations of the Departmental Committee to which I have referred, although many of the more detailed recommendations will be more appropriately dealt with in regulations which will relate to health and welfare, and which the Secretary of State will be empowered to make under the Bill, and also in conditions imposed by licensing authorities. There will be full consultation with licensing authorities and with the cinema industry before new regulations are made.
May I remind the House that the recommendations of the Committee fall under four main heads: first, the imposition of control by regulations over matters affecting the health and welfare of children; second, the extension of the control exercised by licensing authorities; third, certain changes in the categories used for the classification of films; and fourth, the establishment by the Government of a central committee which would be responsible, among other things, for the classification of films.
I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to relate these recommendations to the Bill or, in the case of one recommendation, to what is not in the Bill. The recommendations

under the first head—that is, the imposition of control by regulations with regard to health and safety—are implemented in the Bill by Clause 2, which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations about the health and welfare of children as well as about safety. Regulations made under the 1909 Act are not subject to Parliamentary control, but I think these regulations should be, and I propose to move an Amendment in Committee providing that they shall be subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
The recommendations under the second and third heads—that is, the extension of control by licensing authorities and certain changes in the categories of films—are implemented by Clauses 3 and 4, which deal with the powers of licensing authorities and require that no premises should be used
for a cinematograph exhibition organised wholly or mainly as an exhibition for children.
except with the consent of the licensing authority. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to Clause 3 (1), which imposes duties on the licensing authorities in regard to the admission of children to the cinema. That has been drafted in the light of the Wheare Committee's recommendations relating to the censorship and classification of films.
I agree that it is most desirable that there should be machinery for consultation on these matters between the licensing authorities, the British Board of Film Censors and the cinematograph trade. With this purpose in mind, a Consultative Cinema Committee has recently been set up under the chairmanship of the President of the British Board of Film Censors, who, as the House will know, is Sir Sidney Harris. The committee includes representatives of the licensing authorities and of the producers, distributors and exhibitors of films.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why no Scottish exhibitor was appointed to that committee?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will look into that point, but at the moment I should like to give the general picture, because the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) obviously wants to know why we are leaving the set-up which I am describing. I hope the hon.


Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) will forgive me if I go on with that for the moment.
I have described the Consultative Cinema Committee which has been appointed; that committee has also set up an advisory sub-committee to advise on questions relating to children and the cinema. The sub-committee consists partly of representatives of the main committee and partly of members with special knowledge of the needs of children. I am glad to say that both the main committee and the advisory sub-committee have already started their work.
The Government welcome the establishment of this machinery, which is the result of the initiative and co-operation of all the interests concerned, and they do not think it necessary that a further committee should be appointed by the Government, as was recommended by the Wheare Committee. We consider that it is better that matters relating to the classification of films should remain the responsibility of the British Board of Film Censors, who now have available to them advice from the point of view of the licensing authorities, the cinema industry, educational interests and others with special knowledge of the needs of children.
We think these matters ought not to be entrusted to a committee appointed by the Government. We believe that there are obvious objections in principle to the intervention of a Government-appointed committee in matters which are bound to affect the censorship of films. It would be very doubtful, indeed, whether it would be practicable for such a committee to carry out the classification effectively.
I want to deal especially with Clause 5 because, from my postbag and for other reasons, I think there has been a considerable misapprehension about it. I call the attention of the House to the fact that the remaining Clauses of the Bill deal with matters outside the scope of the Wheare Committee's inquiry, and it is on this one—Clause 5—that most of the criticism of the Bill has been centred. It has been suggested that this Clause is an attempt to impose control, including censorship, on the use of the cinema for non-commercial purposes by

educational bodies, religious organisations, and others. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The whole purpose of this Clause is to safeguard the freedom of non-commercial exhibitions which have not hitherto been subject to control because the films are noninflammable.
I am sure those in the House who are interested have appreciated that the present freedom from control is wholly accidental. No one would suggest that it is logical that the liability to control should depend on the inflammability—in the material sense—of the films used. Nevertheless, the present distinction between inflammable and non-inflammable film has worked well in the past because in practice the commercial cinema, which uses the 35-mm. film, has had to use inflammable films and the non-commercial cinema has been able to use the 16-mm, non-inflammable film. So although the basis is quite illogical, it has worked well up to now.
But, as I have told the House, now that the non-inflammable film is being widely used in the commercial cinema the distinction can no longer be maintained, and the Bill, therefore, seeks to substitute a more rational distinction between commercial and non-commercial exhibitions.

Mr. Joseph Reeves: Surely it is not accidental in view of the fact that films were being exhibited in unlicensed premises?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, but what has happened up to now has been that cinemas have been using the inflammable 35-mm. film, and the places other than cinemas have been using the 16-mm. noninflammable. The position now is that cinemas are proceeding to use the noninflammable film. If we are going to have any regulations at all applied to the cinemas—which everyone must want: we could not have cinemas without any health or safety regulations applied—then we have got to bring them in.
At the same time, when we have got into the position that we are moving over to the use of non-inflammable film in both classes of showings, then I think we ought to put it on a logical basis and distinguish between what are commercial and noncommercial exhibitions. That is what Clause 5 seeks to do. I just want to


show that it really is a matter of protection for the non-commercial showing as well as the bringing in of the commercial showing.
The general principle of the law about control of entertainments—if one may ever try to reduce a law to a general principle—is that it should apply to public entertainments only. I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of two examples. The Theatres Act of 1843 refers to the "public performances of stage plays," and under the Public Health Act Amendment Act of 1890 a licence is required for
places ordinarily used for public dancing or music or other entertainment of a like kind.
This Clause follows the same principle, but it goes considerably further than the earlier enactments in the way of exemption. It provides for the exemption not only of exhibitions to which the public are not admitted, but also of those to which the public are admitted without payment, and even those where there may be a charge for admission if they are given by a non-profit-making organisation which is eligible for exemption from Entertainments Duty. This third class of exempted exhibition is included in the Bill because, in our view, it would be anomalous that an exhibition given by an organisation which is recognised for one purpose as being non-profit-making should be treated for another purpose as if it were commercial.
It has been pointed out that in certain parts of the country there are cinemas run by organisations which could claim exemption under this Clause at which performances are given daily, to which members of the public are admitted on payment as in ordinary cinemas. The Clause was not intended to exempt such cinemas from control, and it is proposed to move an Amendment providing that this exemption shall not apply if the premises are used more often than three days a week.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am very sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but we may as well clear up this point as we go on. Are the exhibitions to which he is now referring commercial ones?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: They are run by a body which could come within the exemption which I have explained in regard to Entertainments Duty. On that

criterion they would come in, but they are in fact cinemas, although they are run by a non-profit-making body. The performance is given daily to members of the public who pay for admission. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that one can have a non-profit-making body which still gives exhibitions to the public for reward provided it does not make a profit out of so giving; and we say that, where we have a body of that kind, which, although non-profit-making by its constitution, is in fact running what is the equivalent of a cinema, giving daily performances to the public for payment, then that should not come under the exemption but should be treated as a cinema, and the regulations should apply. I hope I have made it clear.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not altogether. I am sorry. People give exhibitions of films for one of two reasons, it seems to me. One is educational, or religious, and non-profit-making; and the other is commercial. However, the commercial reasons may be camouflaged, and, as I understand him—I may be wrong, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me—these are in essence commercial, but because they make no profit, or get their profit in some other way than as a cash profit, they would escape the net, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want them to do so. Why should they not, unless they are something which in essence is commercial?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We think they should not escape the net because they are the equivalent of an ordinary cinema; but we approach it the other way. I am coming to that in a moment. We think protection should be given for the scientific or religious body. Let me deal with the point, and it may be that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the whole picture. Believe me, I am most grateful to him for his intervention. It is, as I have tried to indicate, a difficult line to follow out to the general satisfaction, and I want to try to make clear to the House not only what we are doing but why we are doing it. I think the House is entitled to know that. I think it is important. I hope that I shall deal with the point which is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind.
It has been suggested that the classes of exempted exhibition should be even


wider than I have said and should include exhibitions given by any non-profit-making organisation, whether or not it is eligible for exemption from Entertainments Duty. Yet I think it is very doubtful whether it is necessary or desirable to widen the class in this way. I think the present exemptions are very wide and would seem to cover any genuinely non-commercial exhibition.
But let me say a word, as I am dealing with this, on the sort of precautions which are desirable. In my view, even when non-inflammable film is used there ought to be some form of emergency lighting, proper marking and supervision of exits, and arrangements to prevent the obstruction of gangways or exits or the space round the projector. I think that ought to be the rule even where noninflammable films are used. But in view of the concern that has been shown about the possible misuse of the power to impose safety requirements by regulation, we have decided to move an Amendment in Committee to make it clear that where exempted exhibitions are given in premises which are not licensed as a cinema, these safety requirements will not be applicable. I propose to go that degree further.
But where the exhibitions are given in licensed cinemas, the Government think it desirable that both the safety requirements and the conditions of the licence relating to safety should continue to apply, for this reason, that there are greater risks involved in the presence of the much larger audiences that congregate in licensed cinemas, which do not congregate in the other sorts of rooms which I have earlier described to the House.
I have pointed out that where the public pay for admission the dividing line between commercial and non-commercial exhibitions must be drawn with care in order to prevent evasion. If, however, the public are admitted without payment, there is no restriction on the type of organisation which may benefit by the exemptions provided in the Clause. That is one line of criticism that has been made.
I was about to say "strangely enough"—but I do not think it is strange for anyone who has examined the Bill—there has also been criticism that the exempted classes are already too wide. While one

school says that they are not wide enough, another school says that they are too wide. I should like now to deal with this criticism and the reasons why I think there is a danger in restricting the exempted category too much.
It has been pointed out that, under the Clause as it stands, it would be possible for children to attend public performances where there was no charge for admission at which films were exhibited that were unsuitable for children. I am not inventing these criticisms. That is a criticism which has been seriously advanced. This could, of course, happen under the existing law if non-inflammable film is used, whether or not a charge is made for admission: but in my view there is no evidence that it ever has happened, and the danger of children seeing unsuitable films at free public performances does not seem to me to be a very serious one or one for which we need provide.
I agree—and I think this is a point the right hon. Gentleman had in mind—that it is most important to avoid interference with the activities of religious and educational organisations, youth clubs and film societies, and for these reasons the Government think it undesirable that licensing authorities should be given power of control over the admission of children to private exhibitions given in premises which are not licensed as cinemas.
This is a point on which I would gladly consider the views advanced and, in the light of the debate, consider putting down an Amendment to give licensing authorities power to impose conditions relating to the admission of children to non-commercial exhibitions given in licensed cinemas, where the rather more public nature of the performance may perhaps require some control over the admission of children. Apart from that, I do not think that the licensing authorities should be given powers of control over the admission of children to private exhibitions given in premises which are not licensed.

Mr. Ede: Under what he has just said, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard it as suitable for children to be able to attend exhibitions given by the various bodies which deal with precautions against venereal disease, and so on? There is one body—I forget its exact name—


which does give a considerable number of exhibitions on that subject, and which will probably come into the categories the Home Secretary has just been describing. I should have thought it would be highly undesirable that there should be no power to prevent children from attending exhibitions such as those.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman has taken a difficult example. I should like to look into the question whether such a society is likely to give a free show in a place that is not a cinema. Broadly, of course, what I had in mind—I am very anxious not to restrict it, and as far as I can judge the general feeling is that we should not do anything to restrict it—was the kind of bodies I mentioned, namely, religious and educational organisations, youth clubs and film societies. I will certainly look into the point the right hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that that kind of exhibition is occasionally given to the senior members of youth clubs, and so on, and that was one reason I was very anxious to know the position with regard to the junior members of such clubs, and even those younger than that.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think there is some protection in the good sense of those who are running the clubs; but I should like to look into that point. I am sure the whole House will agree that it is difficult to hold the balance. It is something in which we must try to do our best. I do not think there will be any disagreement about the motives, but when one is asked to apply something to a particular case one is always glad to be able to have another look at it. I wish to emphasise what I said before. At the moment, there being no control at all over non-inflammable films, any kind of film which is undesirable, including that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, could be seen by any child, so it is necessary for us to try to get the matter into full order.
There has also been some criticism of the provision in Clause 5 (1, c), which enables the Secretary of State to apply safety regulations to non-commercial exhibitions. It has been suggested that this power might be used to impose such onerous and expensive safety requirements

on non-commercial exhibitions in which non-inflammable film is used that it would be impossible to give them. I need hardly say that the Government have no such intentions. Any safety requirements which may be used, after due consultation with all the interests concerned, would be confined to simple precautions which I have no doubt are already used in places where such exhibitions are given.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central): A few minutes ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that the normal film societies, religious organisations, the churches, and so on, will not have any safety requirements of any kind imposed on them. Is he now referring to non-commercial exhibitions held in a cinema when he speaks of the possibility of safety regulations?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the set-up of Clause 5 (1), he will see that it says:
The following exemptions shall have effect in the case of cinematograph exhibitions (hereinafter referred to as 'exempted exhibitions') to which the public are not admitted or to which the public are admitted without payment, other than children's cinema club exhibitions, that is to say"—
in paragraph (c):
regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Act of 1909, being regulations made by virtue of paragraph (b) of section two of this Act, shall not apply in relation to an exempted exhibition:
If the exhibition comes within the exemptions, those that I am mentioning at the moment will not apply
I was going on to say that even where they will apply, we shall try to apply them after consultation with all the interests concerned and confine them to simple precautions. If I have not answered the hon. Gentleman, I will look at the matter again, and I shall be glad to let him know our view on the point which he has in mind.
I have tried to explain the position, and I hope that the House will not blame me for having dwelt too long on Clause 5: as I have said, that is the one on which most of the criticism has been based. I think that all parties in the House—and, indeed, it has appeared so from the tone of the interruptions and the tone of the debate—are at one on the main purpose of this Bill which is to


ensure proper control over the attendance of children at the commercial cinema.
As I have already pointed out, the Bill is based on the recommendations of a Departmental Committee set up by the late Government and through the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). It was set up, as I understand it, as the result of representations made to the late Government by educational interests and organisations concerned with the welfare of children.

Mr. Ede: I was assisted in the selection of the Committee and its appointment and with the terms of reference by the late right hon. Member for Farnworth, Mr. Tomlinson, who was then Minister of Education. As Minister of Education, he was very actively associated, as was the Secretary of State for Scotland, with the setting up of the Committee and the consideration of its recommendations.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very glad to hear that. I am also glad that I have the opportunity of paying a tribute to the selection of the Committee, and that part of the tribute goes to the late right hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnworth who was personally so dear to his colleagues in every part of the House.
So far as the Government are aware, the only criticism of the proposals contained in the Bill has been in respect of Clause 5, and I hope that the explanation that I have given of the purpose of the Clause, and the changes which the Government propose to make in it, will provide an answer to their criticism. As I have explained, it is important that the Bill should become law as soon as possible, and I trust that the House will give it a unanimous Second Reading.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The right hon. and learned Gentleman began by saying that this was a short Bill, as, indeed, it is. I think, however, that hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree with me when I say that it deals with a very large and extremely widespread industry. I suppose that the cinema is the largest single source of entertainment in the world; its ramifications are immense. Millions of pounds and dollars—I suppose almost beyond computation—have been sunk in it. The cinema and those associated with it are

always news. Though it has its own Press, ordinary newspapers always find something of interest to their readers in the actions of those engaged in this industry.
I suppose that in most towns the cinemas are the most luxurious building there and are in fact, often palaces which give the utmost comfort to great numbers of people. Its stars are the envy of thousands of their fellow creatures, and they enjoy the income of princes. Most noteworthy is the fact that millions of us go week by week to the cinema, which has thus an overwhelming power for good or ill. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated in his opening speech, the astonishing thing is that the only Act which deals with matters relating to the cinema at present on the Statute Book is the Act passed as long ago as 1909—over 40 years ago—when conditions in the world were very different from what they are now.
To what extent, if any, the cinema has helped to make conditions worse, I do not know, but, at any rate, I think that most of us will say that it would be more pleasant if we could return to some at least of the conditions that existed when the 1909 Act—in itself a very short Act—was passed. Since then, the "talkies" have arrived and, although I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to this, we have television, which is also included in the Bill.
It is astonishing to realise how limited that 1909 Act was and how well we have got through the years that have elapsed since it was passed. Its purpose was, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and as I hope the House will not mind my reminding it, to do one simple thing, and that was to make it illegal to exhibit inflammable films without first obtaining a licence for the premises from the competent authority. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland were empowered under the Act to make regulations and these regulations were quite definitely to be for one simple purpose only, namely, for securing safety.
It is true that the subsection in the Act which lays this down goes on to say that those licences are to be issued on such terms and conditions as the authority decides. On that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman reminded us, the English courts have by judicial interpretation


given very wide powers to the local authorities who issue these licences. In Scotland, on the other hand, where probably they have more regard for the law than possibly we have south of the Border, they have stuck strictly to the letter of the Act and confine the licences they issue to the one object for which the original Act was undoubtedly designed.
Under the 1909 Act, there was no provision whatever for censorship of the types of films that could be shown, or for whether children should be allowed in, and, if so, at what age. None of these things is in the 1909 Act and they have, in a sense been imposed, if that is the correct word to use, in England and Wales by case law, though I think that the general feeling of all concerned is that acceptance of these extra conditions is right. There are two reasons for that.
One is that the industry itself, on the whole, has taken a responsible and co-operative attitude towards these matters. It is true that there have been occasions when that has not perhaps been so, but, on the whole, the industry has behaved in an extremely responsible way. The reason the Act has not so far had to be amended, and why many of these things have been added to the 1909 Measure without any outcry on the part of anyone, has been, I think, due largely to the fact that cinema proprietors have realised that, unless they conformed to the conditions laid down, they might not get a renewal of their licences.
Another thing, which I believe could not, perhaps, have obtained anywhere but in this country, has been the setting of the British Board of Film Censors. As I think most of us realise, this is a body which was set up in 1912 by the industry itself. So far as I know, it exists very largely, if not completely, on the fees which are paid by the distributors who take films to the Board for censorship. But there is no legal sanction on the distributor to accept the decision of the British Board. Again, however, because of their sense of responsibility, the industry accept the Board's decision; even in Scotland, where they have less reason so to do, because of the different view taken by the courts there of the 1909 Act, they, too, accept the classifications laid down by the Board.
In spite of all this, and although things are on the whole working fairly smoothly,

legislation has, we have been told, become imperative. If I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman aright, it has become imperative for two reasons. The first is that what is known as noninflammable film has come more and more into use in the commercial cinema for 35-mm. films. It has, of course, been in use for many years in 9.5 or 16-mm. films by non-commercial organisations, but now we are getting it definitely becoming a feature, and a growing feature, for films in the commercial theatre. Therefore, under the 1909 Act technically, at any rate, it might be considered that these theatres were outside the conditions there laid down which necessitated their applying for a licence, and because of this something had to be done in order to regularise the position.
The second thing which has made legislation desirable has been the publication of the Wheare Report. On behalf of right hon. and hon. Friends on this side, I should like to say how much we share the tribute which the right hon. and learned Gentleman paid both to the chairman of that committee and to those associated with him. They have done a fine piece of work and I should like to see more publicity given to the recommendations which they have made. Among other things, they point out, I believe, that 70 per cent. of all the children in England and Wales, at any rate of school age—between the ages of 10 and 15 certainly—go to the cinema at least once a week, and that many of them go oftener.
In Scotland, for some reason—I do not know why, because in Scotland, I thought, they were more careful of their money—80 per cent. of the children of those ages go at least once a week. Nine out of every 10 children of all ages in Great Britain, I gather, certainly from about the age of five upwards, go to the cinema some time, and some of them many times in the course of a month. It is essential that we should take note of these facts and at long last see that some body of regulations is laid down to ensure that the welfare, health and morals of these children are safeguarded.
I had thought of quoting a portion of the Report, but I do not want to detain the House. I will therefore only recommend to those who have not yet studied it, to turn at any rate to page 52 and read


the summary of the evidence which that committee there sets forth.
I was glad to see that the Wheare Committee pay a tribute to the J. Arthur Rank Organisation. As we know, that organisation has for a long time had the welfare of the children's cinema very much at heart. It has done very good work through its Saturday clubs in order to try to make the cinema interesting and of benefit and use to the child, and at the same time to minimise the damage that otherwise might be done through the glamour that surrounds the moving pictures.
We therefore welcome wholeheartedly, and I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the detailed explanation which he gave on the regulations which it is proposed to issue to implement Clauses 2 and 3 or those parts of them which refer to children. It is interesting for us to know something of what the Government have in mind in this direction.
We do not welcome the other parts of the Bill quite so wholeheartedly. When I first saw the Bill, it occurred to me that the proposals in other clauses were quite definitely a retrograde step. I found it difficult to understand why the Government should lay down, as they apparently do in the Bill, the very extensive control which is there envisaged. I am, however, delighted, and so, I am sure, are my right hon. and hon. Friends, to realise from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he intends to move some Amendments when we come to the Committee stage, which I gather will be some time later this week.
Even then, there are certain questions that we should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I was not at all sure from what he said that his Amendments go as far as many of us on this side of the House would like them to go. He intends, I understand, to see that all non-profit-making, non-commercial exhibitions shall be free of most of the controls which still are in the Bill. But he intends, if I understand him aright, to see that although those controls go, they will be retained if the exhibition is given in a licensed cinema.
I cannot understand why the Home Secretary thus insists on the safety regulations applying if the non-commercial

film is shown in a licensed cinema. After all, it is the cinema which is licensed now, not the film. A proprietor gets his cinema licence and can then show any films throughout the year, and he is quite within the terms of the 1909 Act by so doing. Why is it that when a noncommercial organisation showing a nonprofit-making film—or even, under the relative section of the Finance Act, a film that makes a profit—it should have to go to the appropriate body for a licence to show that film? We fail to understand the reason for this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the very lucid explanation which he gave, failed to make it clear to us on this side of the House why he retains that provision. It cannot surely be on the ground of safety. Regulations are already there to guard against fire breaking out. The premises themselves will already have had to comply with the law dealing with fire regulations, and in many cases the film shown will be a non-inflammable film.
We must, therefore, conclude that this obligation, which is to form part of the Amendment which will be moved in Committee, to seek a licence for the film itself when it is shown in licensed premises, must have some other basis than that of mere safety. We should like to know before the end of this debate whether that is so. Perhaps when the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replies, he will explain to us why, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman has gone so far, as undoubtedly he has, the Government will not go all the way with us. If they would do that, I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the passage of the Bill through this House before this Session is prorogued will be easier than it will otherwise be.
I have very little more to say, except that we should like assurances on one or two other matters. The first refers to non-profit-making exhibitions, as we term them, which can get relief from Entertainments Duty under the Finance Act, 1946. We feel that the exemption for non-profit-making films should not rest solely on that fact. There is a Finance Act every year, and what is made the law in one Finance Act may not necessarily continue to be the law in another.
I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that some other wording should be devised so that it will not be obligatory on these bodies, religious, philanthropic, educational and so on, to get relief simply and solely because they are able to conform to the Section in the Finance Act which gives such organisations the power to apply to Customs and Excise for a certificate exempting them from Entertainments Duty. We feel that that should be looked at, and something should be done to give these people a much greater security than they now have in that direction.
Finally, I should like to ask for an assurance before this debate ends that before the regulations generally come to be promulgated, all organisations interested will be consulted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I do that there are many sections interested in the cinema, and it would not only be an act of courtesy but would save him, I believe, a great deal of trouble if, before the actual Statutory Instrument is presented to Parliament, the most widespread consultation took place that it is possible to have.
Having said that, all I want to add is that we on this side of the House do not intend to divide on the Second Reading. Many of the criticisms—and we are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for it—have been met in the speech with which be opened the debate. We should, however, like an answer to the points I have put and those others which I have no doubt hon. Friends behind me will be putting during the course of the debate. If we can get an assurance on these points, the Committee stage will be as swift and friendly as I am positive our proceedings today will be.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Peter Legh: It is evident from what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) said that the underlying principles of this Bill are going to meet with general acceptance, and I am sure we must all be prepared to welcome those provisions of the Bill which are designed to ensure that children shall not see at cinemas things which they ought not to see. Yet I, for one, regret that this is another instance of the State, though rightly and necessarily, having to

exercise responsibilities over children which ought to be exercised by the children's parents themselves without any prompting or direction from the State. However, I do not want to dwell upon that theme, but to confine my remarks to two other aspects of the Bill.
As I understand the Bill from reading it and listening to my right hon. and learned Friend, its main purpose is to extend the control of cinematograph exhibitions to include exhibitions of noninflammable films. The Bill exempts from formal licence free shows other than shows given by children's cinema clubs, private shows and shows which qualify for exemption from Entertainments Duty. But the Bill, as it stands, gives power to the Minister to issue regulations on the grounds of public safety in respect of all exhibitions, whether they are exempted exhibitions under the Bill or not.
I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to say that he is proposing to put down an Amendment in Committee which will free from all safety control regulations exempted exhibitions of non-inflammable films which take place in halls which are not licensed cinemas. I, for one—as I am sure everybody will be who loves the countryside and its villages—am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for making this concession without being asked by any Member of the House to do so.
I want to ask him to make yet another concession, so that commercial exhibitions of non-inflammable films will also be freed from any safety control regulations which may be made from time to time under the Act of 1909. I can readily believe that it is logical and perhaps desirable on the grounds of administrative tidiness that safety control should be extended to non-inflammable films, but with great respect I still do not understand why it should be necessary to extend this control. I am told that the view of the committee which advised the Home Office on this subject in 1939 was this:
As regards the question of safety, we are satisfied that the risks of fire from slow burning film, whether in or out of the projector, may be treated as negligible.
I am told that the committee went on to report as follows:
With the exception of one minor case of panic not associated with fire, there is no


record at the Home Office of any case of fire or panic having occurred at any exhibition of slow burning films.

Dr. Stross: Is it not a fact that that inquiry was concerned with substandard film only and not with 35-mm. film, the type commercially shown? Are we not now considering the implications of commercial 35-mm. film?

Mr. Legh: That may very well be so, but I am concerned only with the safety aspect. From that aspect I do not see that it matters whether it is 35-mm. or 16-mm., or whether the exhibition is commercial or not. If since 1939 there has been no case of panic or fire resulting from the exhibition of non-inflammable films, we ought to be told now in greater detail why the Home Office view of this matter has changed. My right hon. and learned Friend said that it was not his intention to issue very stringent regulations regarding the exhibition of commercial non-inflammable films in non-licensed cinemas, but he has not written that into the Bill, at any rate yet, and he cannot bind his successors. Nor can my right hon. and learned Friend tell, any more than I can, what regulations may or may not be made in the years to come by his successors at the Home Office.
If he will not agree to extend to the exhibition of commercial non-inflammable films, the concession which he intends for exempted exhibitions, then considerable hardship may be caused to people who live in country areas. That could happen in my own constituency, which is very big geographically. It consists mainly of a large number of villages, between which and the larger towns communications are not always all that they might be. So far as I know, there are only three proper cinema theatres in the whole of it, but many of my constituents are able to enjoy commercial performances of non-inflammable films in their village halls.
The Bill could put an end to all exhibitions of that kind because it opens the way to regulations which could make the ordinary village hall unusable for any kind of cinema performance, unless very expensive structural alterations were made. It does not need me to say that the trustees of the average village hall have very little money nowadays to carry out

such alterations. I end this first part of my remarks with a plea to my right hon. and learned Friend to extend the concession, which he is going to make to exempted exhibitions of non-inflammable films, to include commercial exhibitions of non-inflammable films.
As I understand the Bill, it proposes that cinema shows given by non-profit-making organisations shall be exempted from formal licensing, provided they are also exempted from Entertainments Duty. At present this exemption from duty is granted on grounds of philanthropic purpose or partly educational aim. I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to say that he did not want to widen too much the definition of exempted exhibitions. But I would remind him that exemption from Entertainments Duty is dependent upon fiscal policy, which can be changed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a future Budget. I have been advised that, if the Bill is passed in its present form, a change of fiscal policy could mean that a church society or missionary society, giving a cinema show in the crypt of a church and charging a few pence for admission, might have to comply with precisely the same regulations as a large licensed cinema in a town.
I would therefore ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he would not agree that it shall be sufficient for a show to be an exempted exhibition under the Bill if the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have certified that the organisation concerned is not conducted or established for profit? I ask him to accept that definition and to write it into the Bill. Apart from the points I have raised I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy passage.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Reeves: I am sure that we have all listened with very great interest to the Home Secretary's speech on the Bill, and that we appreciate the purposes which have prompted the promotion of this Measure. There is no doubt that the law governing film exhibitions is in many ways out-of-date, and, although the Bill does not seek to put a new purpose into the original Act, it seeks to provide for certain definite omissions which could not have been foreseen at the time when that Act was promoted.
The Home Secretary paid a very sincere tribute to the work of the Departmental Committee presided over by Professor Wheare, which went into the problem with very great care and understanding, and the recommendations of which will be useful not only for today but for many years ahead. We shall be guided by the very sympathetic recommendations they have advanced.
When dealing with films, we have had three objectives in view. The original one was safety. The promoters of the Bill in 1909 were concerned with the safety of people who attended celluloid film exhibitions, which had shown that inherent dangers had to be provided against. It was necessary for the public to be protected. Arising out of that Act grew up, almost incidentally, a whole system of censorship. True, it was a voluntary censorship. In another place we have heard that it is not the Government's intention to establish a State censorship. I think we all agree with that.
What has happened as a result of the 1909 Act is that we have local authority censorship. This has been very reasonably applied, and only on very few occasions have the public felt called upon to protest against the nature of this censorship. The voluntary censorship which the film industry itself arranged, through the British Board of Film Censors, has worked admirably, except, as I said, on one or two occasions.
Some years ago I had a violent quarrel with the British Board of Film Censors when I was trying to introduce a delightful Polish film into the country. They objected to a sequence in the film showing the suckling of a child at its mother's breast, which struck me as being shortsighted and foolish. On the whole, however, they have done their work excellently. The main purpose of the Bill is entirely praiseworthy and, although certain of its Clauses have raised doubts in our minds, I am sure that with good will and understanding we can get the necessary Amendments or clarifications to enable us to support the Bill wholeheartedly.
As I have said, safety regulations were necessary originally, but with the development of the non-inflammable film that aspect is disappearing. I have no doubt that in the fulness of time the non-inflammable film will be the general rule in the commercial cinema for reasons

which are obvious. So, having dealt with the safety aspect, we now concentrate on the censorship angle and the perhaps more important point nowadays of the protection of the child. In that direction the Bill makes significant proposals.
My right hon. Friend has mentioned the two aspects which in our view may be dangerous unless we have precise explanations of how they are to be worked. First, there is the question of the Home Office regulations for exempted exhibitions or screenings. I have a vivid recollection of a local authority trying to interfere with the exhibition of non-inflammable films some years ago. Indeed there were quite a number of court cases and the local authorities—in some cases the police themselves—tried to show that the Act covered the exhibition of non-inflammable films. In every case these cases were dismissed and no one could say that non-inflammable film came under the Sections of the 1909 Act. Even so, however, there is no doubt that certain local authorities tried to impose the normal regulations covering inflammable films on exhibitions of non-inflammable films even when they were of an educational character.
I was involved myself in a case of this kind in a certain county, so that I can speak with a considerable amount of feeling. We want to be absolutely sure that the safety regulations, except those which the body concerned itself applies, will not apply to the exempted organisations, such as educational bodies, religious organisations and so on. As a matter of fact there are many film exhibitions today in churches which could not by any stretch of the imagination be classified as conforming to normal regulations, but where danger from the screening of non-inflammable film is infinitesimal.
I should have liked to exhibit to hon. Members this afternoon a piece of non-inflammable film. On innumerable occasions I have seen people try to ignite it. It does not light, it merely smoulders, and although some people say the danger in its use is negligible, I say that danger is entirely non-existent. In any case it would be impossible for the authorities concerned in the exhibition of a film in a church to operate any safety regulations other than those normally applied in the interests of their congregations.
The second important point relates to bodies exempted from Entertainments Duty by the Chancellor of the Exchequer because, although they charge for admission, they are either of an educational, a religious or a philanthropic character. There is the danger that at some future time the Chancellor will say, "I must get money wherever I can and I must impose Entertainments Duty upon these bodies in spite of the fact that they are doing this work and that they have been exempted in the past." We want to avoid that. We want to free those bodies from any possibility that they may come within the scope of this Bill. I am sure that the Home Secretary is sympathetic and I am sure that it is not his purpose that such bodies should be included by one device or another in the future. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to make the necessary arrangements, I am sure that our feelings will be much relieved.
Those are our two main objections to the Bill. They are not big, but they are important. We have had this freedom for many years and there has been no case in days gone by when the principles have been violated by the shows not being properly conducted. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will look at the point once again.

5.8 p.m.

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: I want to follow previous speakers in welcoming the general acceptance of this Bill on all sides of the House and my intervention will deal with a single point, the application of parts of the Bill to Scotland. I am prompted by a communication which I have received from the Scottish branch of the Cinema Exhibitors' Association. I have no personal connection with the industry, but this has been supported by a telegram or two from trustworthy cinema proprietors in my constituency and I have no doubt that it is worth the consideration of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
In short, it asks that Clause 3 should not apply to Scotland. The request is based on the fact that since 1934 there has been a voluntary agreement which has worked well for 18 years and it asks why this should be reversed now. I listened to the Home Secretary when he

mentioned this point, but he left me unconvinced. I thought my right hon. and learned Friend took it much too readily for granted that we in Scotland are prepared to conform to England for the sake of doing so. Personally, I am not at all keen on changes made for the sake of change, especially when it is done merely in order to meet clerical conformity.
May I read in detail what this voluntary achievement did? It amounted to wide publicity being given locally to the category of films and the times at which they were to be shown, and that enables parents to make up their minds, by reading the local Press, about whether or not they wish their children to see a specified film.
The voluntary agreement was originally introduced in 1934 to run for an experimental period of one year, and it succeeded so well that it has been continued to the present time with, as far as I know, no volume of criticism from any quarter. Furthermore, it has been kept up to date, because when the new "X" category for films was introduced four years ago, the Scottish authority and the Scottish branch of the Cinema Exhibitors' Association widened the agreement to include that category. According to the words of this memorandum:
this would strongly indicate that in the view of the Scottish authorities the agreement has been working satisfactorily.
If all is well, why strive to change it? If the present state of affairs is satisfactory, why not leave well alone? I hope that when the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replies to the debate he will indicate that if an Amendment to exclude Scotland from the operation of Clause 3 were to be moved in the Committee stage, he would not turn it down out of hand. On the contrary, I venture to suggest to him that he should insert that Amendment on behalf of the Government so that we might be sure that he has this matter of Scotland fully in his mind, as I am convinced he has.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I am sure that the Home Secretary must be feeling extremely gratified at the welcome which has been given to the Bill which he so ably expounded. He has discovered, of course, that there are one or two qualifications in the attitude of certain hon. Members, and if I express one


he should realise that perhaps it is due to my having a narrower and more nationalist outlook than he had when he was speaking on the Bill.
I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be averse to a little twitting on this subject. I was extremely interested to hear a Tory Minister advocating the need for more control and more regulations. Now that the Tories have failed to set the people free, apparently they are to take a closer grip of the cinemas, and by and by we may hear a demand that we should set the cinema free, too.
Nevertheless, we on this side of the House welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude because it is obvious that the Government Front Bench are learning that liberty resides to a large extent in a wise and discriminating use of control and regulation. We are glad to see that in this respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman is following the wise and far-sighted lead which was provided by the Labour Government when they were dealing with matters of national concern, as this one is.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) was speaking, he said that according to the statistics which he had it was shown that the average attendance of school children at the cinema in Scotland was once a week. I should be very glad if those figures were universal and if they applied everywhere, because from an inquiry which I conducted before I came to the House, I discovered that in the City of Glasgow, in certain schools with which I was associated, children were attending the cinema three and four times every week—not in one week, but almost every week throughout the year.
I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that any instrument which has such an immense influence over the developing mind of the child is an instrument which must be subject to control and regulation. While I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) that a good deal of the danger of fire has disappeared from the cinema because of the use of noninflammable film, I think he will accept that although that cause may have gone the danger of fire is not altogether absent from the cinema even today. Of course, all Scottish hon. Members will recollect

that one of the gravest tragedies in Scotland was some years ago when fire took place in a cinema in the town of Paisley with tragic consequences to the children who were attending that performance.

Dr. Stross: Would my hon. Friend agree, however, that such danger of fire is more likely to occur in a large commercial cinema where people are crowded together in great numbers and where they are smoking, than in a small hall not normally used for the purpose?

Mr. Rankin: I certainly agree with that. The point which I was seeking to establish was that often in large cinemas, as I have seen, people are very thoughtless in the disposal of matches which they have used for lighting cigarettes and pipes, and do not take advantage of the safety aids which the cinema people provide for the disposal of used matches. The danger of fire exists, and safety precautions have, in my view, to be strict.
I was given an illustration of the power of the cinema on the young mind, and of the interest which it has for the adolescent, in another experiment which I conducted over 20 years ago when I was appointed in the City of Glasgow to the headship of a continuation centre. The roll of the school was falling seriously. In consultation with one or two people who were interested in visual education I decided to use the cinema as a means of bringing boys and girls into the school. It met with overwhelming success and in one winter I doubled the roll of the school. That was not merely a temporary inflation, for it continued and the school went on to be very successful indeed.
But I had some difficulty with the Department of Education for Scotland, because not only did I introduce the type of film which was then coming along, such as "Log Felling in California," to show to the woodwork class, but I also introduced films of Charlie Chaplin. On his first visit the Inspector of the Department of Education for Scotland wanted to know how I could justify the introduction of Charlie Chaplin into the school and what relation his films had to the teaching of mathematics or the teaching of English. There was no direct relationship, of course, but my simple argument was that it was a visual aid and brought in children who otherwise would be outside the school. Charlie's influence drew them


into the school, where they remained and profited from the education which was available. That sort of thing has gone on growing until now it is a definite feature of educational work all over the country.
But because of these facts and because of this grip on the mind of the child there must be control and regulation so far as the cinema itself is concerned and so far as the films it shows are concerned. That brings me to a point which is creating a little difficulty for Scottish exhibitors and which was mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray). The Home Secretary said that Clause 5 would probably be a contentious one. Clause 3 may not be very contentious but, nevertheless in the mind of the Scottish exhibitor it raises the question, why disturb a system which is working well in Scotland because the system in England has not been working well?
It is true that the Wheare Committee have vigorously condemned what is happening in England today. It says that the fact that a child under 16 cannot get into the cinema results in the child hanging about the cinema looking for some adult who will be kind enough to take him in. When we realise the social implication of that the Home Secretary will appreciate that in view of some recent happenings in the City of Glasgow people's minds are seriously disturbed by the thought that their children might be forced into that position if the system which now exists in Scotland were disturbed in favour of the uniformity which the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires to see regarding the showing of certain films.
The Scottish system has worked successfully because the categories of films were widely publicised so that parents knew whether a film was a "U." an "A" and, in recent years, an "X" film. Consequently, I think the Home Secretary will agree, we want to interest the parents' minds in regard to the kind of film the child sees. Just as we have a parent-teacher association connected with the school, I should like to see—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not disagree—a parent-cinema association because of the tremendous grip the cinema has on the young mind.
Parents know the type of film which is coming often for quite a while ahead. Because of that they can say to the child, "Now you are not going to that film." I know that saying to a child, "You are not" to do a certain thing invites dangers, but there the wisdom of the parent is challenged and, in most cases, parents—if they are worthwhile—are able to triumph over these difficulties.
That is the position as it appears to those of us interested in the type of film shown in the commercial cinemas in Scotland. We have a system which is working well; in England there is a system which is not working well. I do not know whether my right hon. Friends are objecting to that or not, but my information is that the system in England is not working so well as it works in Scotland.

Mr. Ede: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that that is exactly the view I hold in the reverse.

Mr. Rankin: We must agree to disagree on that point. I thought I had established the point in regard to a child of 16 and under that the Scottish system worked quite well. The method in England is not quite so successful, so the Government say, "We are going to abandon the Scottish system and, on the argument of uniformity, impose the English system in its stead." My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that he agreed with me in reverse. We have heard a great deal on other occasions about paramountcy, but in doing that we are applying the doctrine of paramountcy in reverse.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. He does not think that the English system works well. Having been in Scotland, I do not think the Scottish system works well.

Mr. Rankin: We will still agree to disagree on that and I hope my right hon. Friend will go back to Scotland, and stay longer. Then he may change his attitude.
I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the midst of the shower of welcome which has been given the Bill—and deservedly—to ask his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with the modest point I have put before the House when he replies to the debate.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: As one of the general "getters-up," so to speak, of the Wheare Committee I thought it would be desirable if I said a word or two from the Scottish point of view. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), Mr. George Tomlinson and myself asked this Committee to try to find out something which is almost impossible to arrive at with any certainty—what is the effect of the cinema on children and the best way of protecting them when they go to the cinema? We have heard all about "Buffalo Bill" books and novels of various kinds and there is no possibility of coming to any conclusion as to the exact nature of their effect. But everyone is agreed that every reasonable step must be taken to protect children as far as possible from pernicious influences.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) commented on the fact that there is a huge proportion of children who go to the cinema in Scotland as compared with the number in England. It is interesting to notice that the proportion decreases—it does not jump—as it comes below the Border. It is very high in Scotland, a little lower in the district of my right hon. Friend's constituency, lower in London, and in the South of England it is the lowest of all.
Clearly, it is not the system in Scotland that determines the number of children who go to the cinema. It is more likely to be the habits of the country, and the climate and conditions of life in that part of the country. The same point arises when one discusses the question of juvenile delinquency and a great many other aspects in the Report. It is true that they may be associated with the number who go to the cinema, but the same conclusion could be reached from overcrowded housing conditions in these parts of the country.
I would say from my own knowledge that the reason why so many children in Scotland go to the cinema, and go so often, is due almost entirely to the housing conditions in Scotland. Children are sent to the cinema sometimes to get them out of the house. The cinema is often used as a parking place for the children when their parents want to visit their friends.
A friend of mine inquired once the reason for all the row that was going on in a cinema one night. There was a babble going on all round him. The cinema manager explained that all the children who were present had seen the film on Monday, but were still sent, or came back, on Tuesday or Wednesday to get out of the rain, or were parked there while their parents were doing something else. The children were not paying attention to the picture, they were simply in the cinema to have their fun away from the streets.
The problem, therefore, is not only the kind of film from which we should protect children. There is also the difficulty, so long as the present housing conditions remain, that if we shut them out of the cinema we automatically put them on the streets. Whether the streets on a dark winter's night in Scotland, with the drizzle and the rain, are a more suitable place for children than having their larks in the cinema, I take leave to doubt, and on the whole I would prefer to risk the cinema.
We are proposing to try to deal to some extent with the type of film, which is, of course, a difficult matter. A good many of the American films are designed for a low mental age. In fact, I have heard some of our intellectuals condemn all American films as being designed for a low mental age. Certainly, a great number of them do no harm to children any more than did the "Buffalo Bill" or other type of gangster films, past or present. Americans invert their gangster films and make them prove that crime does not pay. Many of them teach good morals and while there may be something of an improper nature in them obviously the children do not necessarily understand it.
So far as Scotland is concerned, the type of film against which we desire to protect the child is not very often shown, because there is no market for it. The highly intellectual adult problem film is not liked in Scotland. These mass cinemas to which children go simply give it the "bird." I am told that in Inverness, whenever the characters in a film start kissing, the film is actually booed off the screen. Overdoing that sort of thing offends taste in Scotland if it is done in public.
It is true that that type of film is not so prevalent in Scotland. Some of the big cinema people say that they simply cannot book them. The word goes round like the bush telegraph, and whenever one of these films of the long-haired, intellectual type come to the cinema the cinema is empty for the rest of the week. That is why exhibitors protested against being forced to accept such films as part of the quota, because their cinemas were empty whenever they showed them.
As anyone knows, children are very often completely bored with such a film. They do not know what it is all about and it just sickens them. They say that the cinema show has been "rotten" that week. That may be their description. On the other hand, when they arrive home after seeing a thriller they are filled with joy and describe it as "super," or some such term.
We cannot get away from the risk to which the children are exposed. But there is a risk in everything. I saw a boy aged three who had been watching a gymnastic display by some contortionists on the television, and within five minutes he was doing what the gymnasts had done; standing on his head and trying to swing from the table and things of that kind. Children will inevitably imitate, and there will always be a percentage of children who will indulge in juvenile delinquency because they see something on the cinema screen.
When I was at the Scottish Office I looked at a film which was produced to counteract juvenile delinquency, and I was shocked to see, at the end of it, that one of the tricks the children were advised against was piling straw at the bottom of a telegraph pole and setting it alight. I said, "It is no use teaching them new tricks. We had better cut that out." and it was cut out. It is almost impossible to do anything without providing children with an example from which they can take a lesson, either right or wrong. We cannot insulate children from the sins of the world.
So far as the Scottish cinema people are concerned, their point of view, which has been the general point of view of those responsible for legislation in Scotland, is that it is a matter which should be left to the local authorities. The local authorities get the licence and

are quite able to judge the sort of conditions they should impose. The only complaint we have had about Clause 3 as it stands is that it makes it a duty on them to impose conditions. It says:
It shall be the duty of the licensing authority, in granting a licence … as respect any premises … to impose conditions or restrictions prohibiting the admission of children to cinematograph exhibitions….
I believe that that will be impracticable and will raise a lot of difficulties which are unjustified in view of what I have said.
I do not feel that the alternative of children being on the streets, and becoming ill from the damp and rain, is so attractive. Our problem is to find a place where they are out of danger, and if they are out of danger in the cinema parents can feel satisfied and know where they are for three hours, which is always something for parents in a Scottish town.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he is opposed to subsection (1, a) of Clause 3? Is that what he is opposing?

Mr. Woodburn: I am suggesting it should be made a little more flexible, or that the matter should be left to the good sense of the local authority.
In connection with methods of licensing in Scotland, for many years we have taken the view that we do not teach local authorities how to do their job. It is left to them and I would suggest that the Government should consider that there should not be an innovation by telling the licensing authority just exactly what kind of licence it should issue.
I believe that the guidance given by the Report and the general discussion here will be sufficient, but I suggest that there are slightly different attitudes in regard to the type of film used in Scotland. I would also beseech hon. Members not to conclude that all crime, all juvenile delinquency comes from the cinema.
My experience in Scotland is that cinema proprietors look after the children just as well as any adult who goes with them. In many small cinemas, the proprietors know the children. They are accustomed to seeing that the children behave themselves, and they look


after them both when they come in and go out. I think this is a much better thing than to have strangers solicited by the children to look after them at the cinema. They will get into less trouble sitting together in the cinema than they would if they solicit some strangers to take them in.
In support of my hon. Friend who raised the point about recent incidents, there is no doubt that there has been apprehension about the soliciting that takes place though it has not been practised in Scotland, and there would be apprehension if that were to develop, as is suggested in the Report. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will look at the matter and see whether the provisions of the Clause could be loosened a little.
The cinema is a great educational medium. We all hear complaints about its evils, but very few people realise the great good which it can do. The Ministry of Education and ourselves in Scotland should recognise that the people who write the "Deadwood Dick" stories and who produce thrilling films for the cinema have found a way of attracting the interest of the children, and that, instead of condemning it, we should use it and realise the importance of using to the full a medium that reaches right into the mind of the child. If the right things go into the mind of a child, then there may not be so much room left for the wrong things; and if we get children to take an interest in education through this medium we shall be making great progress.
The schools find great difficulty in teaching citizenship, and the lessons to be learned by means of films in the commercial cinema could do a great deal about this. I do not know who arranges it, but America seems to manage to get all sorts of education and propaganda about her police force and her Armed Forces, her medical institutions and other institutions, by means of her films, and we in this country actually pay for it.
While the Americans use films to teach their people the benefits of their institutions, we do not seem to realise that it is quite possible for us to do the same. I hope we shall make a start in this direction, because there are many examples of this being done in a highly

educative manner. It would be wise if the Minister of Education, our own Department in Scotland, and all those concerned with education, were to use the cinema for all that is good and desirable in the interests of the children.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: There is, no doubt, a great deal to be said for what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) has been advocating in the concluding passages of his speech. But it also entails great dangers. We saw that kind of propaganda very seriously abused in Europe before the war.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that in the United States good and intelligent use is made of the idea, but I do not know whether the education authorities come into it in the United States. It may be simply a general development of their film structure which enables them to take this general line and point of view, and to encourage citizenship. I should like to think that the same was done in this country. I believe that something is done in this direction; in fact, I have been plainly told by one eminent cinema proprietor that it is very much in his mind.
I, too, should like to consider the Scottish point of view, which has been referred to by the last three speakers. It is true to say that a different system has grown up in Scotland, where the licensing authorities themselves have been very activated under the 1909 Act by considerations of safety, whereas in this country, with a disregard for the Preamble and the short title of the 1909 Act which I can only envy as an hon. Member of this House, licensing authorities were encouraged to take into account the content of the film.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Gentleman should know, and probably does know, that the Scottish exhibitors take into account the content of the film, but do it voluntarily.

Mr. Macpherson: I am coming to that. I am dealing purely with the matter of the licensing authority and where we stand on this matter.
The position is that, broadly, we seem to have three alternatives open to us.


First, there is that of leaving the situation as it is, and that, as my hon. Friend has suggested, would involve the exclusion of Clause 3 (1, a) as far as Scotland is concerned. The second alternative is to apply the Clause to Scotland, as is proposed in the Bill. The third alternative, if I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, is that it should be modified in order to leave in the hands of the licensing authorities the decision whether or not to attach licensing conditions.
As the Bill stands they are obliged to attach licensing conditions, which are prescribed in Clause 2 by the Secretary of State. I understand that, under the 1909 Act and also under this Bill, the Secretary of State is the Home Secretary.

Mr. Woodburn: The Secretary of State is multi-personal. I think that "Secretary of State" might mean many different persons.

Mr. Macpherson: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; I was not clear on that point. Very greatly as we respect my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and count him as one of us, we would very much prefer that the regulations should be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the question of parents' responsibilities, to which importance is attached in Scotland. Broadly speaking, the argument is advanced that, in Scotland, it is left to the parents to decide whether the child should or should not see an "A" film. The figures themselves—and I should like to ask my hon. Friend about this—do indicate that the parents may not always exercise that responsibility very closely.
I see from the Report that 56 per cent. of children between the ages of five and nine attended the cinema once a week, as against 36 per cent. in England. Looking further, we find that, over that same period, 75 per cent. of the programme contained at least one "A" film, so that one can deduce that a good many more children in Scotland saw "A" films than was the case in England.
It is a question how far we can leave to parents responsibilities which they themselves are not always prepared to exercise, and I think we should hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary

what evidence he has that this voluntary system has not been working as well in Scotland as it might, and what reason there is to change the system. Merely to bring a system that has become widely different in Scotland into line with a system operating in England is not, in itself, a good enough argument. I think we need more positive reasons to be given to us showing why the system should be changed before we can give our assent to its being changed.
I understand that there is a Consultative Council, and reference has been made to it. If the Secretary of State for Scotland is to make the regulations for Scotland surely he should have a Consultative Council to advise him on the kind of regulations he intends to make. Surely we are not going to be told that the regulations are necessarily to be the same for Scotland as for England. The different regulations could quite easily be made, and that, of course, would carry into effect what the right hon. Member for East Stirling has been suggesting. Will my hon. Friend deal with that point when he replies?
There is one other matter to which I want to refer, and that is the question of cinema clubs in Scotland. It is not very clear to me, from the Bill, how far the proposed legislation would alter the situation regarding cinema clubs, first, as to safety and, secondly, as to content of film and the attendance of children. I should be glad if my hon. Friend would deal with that point. Though I have ventured to raise these points, I should like to join with the rest of the House in giving a general welcome to the Bill.

5.51 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of supporting this Bill in so far as it affects children because I believe it contains the basis of what might be a tremendous step forward in the nation's attitude towards the whole question of the cinema and children.
Clause 2 gives the Minister power to make regulations affecting the health and welfare of children at cinemas. I hope we are going to take those words "health and welfare" in their widest sense and that, in addition to taking precautions to protect our children against physical danger in crowded cinemas, we shall


concern ourselves about the spiritual, moral and intellectual health of our children at film shows, and will do that positively rather than negatively.
Clause 4 gives the licensing authorities power to impose special conditions regarding shows for children. In the same way, I hope the licensing authorities will use the powers which the Bill proposes to give them wisely and imaginatively, not as Mrs. Grundies, but rather as good parents to the nation's children.
Some months ago, hon. Members saw in the Library an exhibition of some infra-red photographs recording the behaviour of children during one of the Saturday morning entertainments provided by cinemas. Some of us, through the kindness of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), had also the privilege of seeing an infra-red film recording the behaviour of children in the privacy of the Saturday morning cinema entertainment.
We saw how children reacted at a kiddies' show which was designed, allegedly, to provide entertainment, a bit of excitement, a bit of relaxation, a bit of fun and a little happiness. It was at a show which one might hope would provide the children with a little more knowledge of the world of men and the world of things. But we saw in those photographs children in the dark, in the intimate secrecy and solitude of the film show registering terror, shrinking away, hiding their faces, sometimes peeping through their fingers to look at something they were really afraid to see, but were yet drawn to see.
I do not think that anyone who saw the photographs in a recent edition of "Picture Post" or who has seen the photographs in the pamphlet entitled "Children in the Cinema" written by the hon. Mrs. Bower, one of the members of the Wheare Committee, could fail to be troubled at the fact that here were children at an entertainment devised for their pleasure suffering intense misery and anxiety.
I think we are inclined—particularly we men—to think of a children's audience as consisting entirely of tough young boys of nine, 10, 11 or 12 and as if all boys, and even girls, of those ages were tough and revelled in their "Westerns" and adventure films as we when we were

children revelled in playing "Indians and Cowboys." But in the same Saturday film shows for children there are youngsters of five, six and seven who enjoy crime and violence in about just the same way as the terrified animal enjoys the approach of the boa-constrictor.
I would not wish to be thought to be attacking the commercial companies who put on these Saturday morning shows for children. I say most sincerely that I think they have been ahead of public enterprise in discovering a specific need and in seeking, according to their lights, the best way of meeting it. I cannot imagine that local cinema managers make very much money out of this Saturday morning entertainment. I know that some of them are deliberately and conscientiously groping forward in the desire to provide such entertainment as they think children will like, and that they are associating it with codes of honour and codes of conduct in the Saturday morning cinema shows which must be of great good to the children who attend them.
But they need help, and the nation should co-operate with them. The local licensing authorities should co-operate with them. We do not wish to abolish children's cinema shows, but rather to make them an instrument of healthy pleasure and healthy entertainment. We want to make the best possible use of this terrifically powerful instrument for the benefit of children which modern science has put into our hands.
I was glad that in introducing this Bill the Home Secretary paid tribute to the excellent work of the Wheare Committee which investigated this whole question. Possibly one of the most significant passages in its report is one in which it attempts to describe what it calls the "almost hypnotic force" of the cinema—for good or for evil on the tender minds of young children.
The Wheare Committee made a number of very useful suggestions. I wish to mention one or two of the most important ones because I think they should be embodied in the regulations which the Minister will later make under Clauses 2 and 4. They recommend, for example, that there should be a minimum age of seven for unaccompanied children to ordinary cinema shows, that there should be a minimum age of five for admittance to children's cinema shows and that no


unaccompanied child under the age of 12 should be allowed in a cinema after 8 o'clock at night.
The good parents of England do not need such regulations, but we have to help parents who need some assistance from the State in things like this. The Wheare Committee recommend that there should be special seats in cinemas for unaccompanied children which would avoid some of the dangers that have already been hinted at this afternoon and which are present in the minds of all of us.
The Committee make the more positive recommendation that adults who are interested in children's entertainment should be invited to these children's cinema shows and that there should be a certain portion of the cinema set aside for the accommodation of such people who take a real live interest in what is being done. They also make a serious practical suggestion that there should be adequate supervision of lavatories at such shows, which is something that will commend itself to anybody who has thought about the problem at all.
As I said at the beginning, I hope that we will make a positive approach to this question and that, as the Wheare Committee recommend, we are going to take this question of choosing films for children's entertainment very seriously indeed. I hope that we shall recruit into this great adventure teachers, youth workers, lovers of children and social workers of all kinds, not with a spoilsport motive but with a desire to lay before children all that this magnificent new instrument of entertainment can provide.
I do not see why children should not go to see, for example, the film which I saw recently advertised in London as "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe—from Mondays to Fridays only!" We must have no negative approach to this problem. I am among those who believe that there are more good films about than are available for children's entertainment. The classic films that appeared during the first 20 years of the history of films disappear from the commercial circuit for good and sufficient reasons to make room for the new films which come along. But in the film libraries of the world and in the store houses of the great film companies there are magnificent films like

"David Copperfield," "Monte Cristo," the magnificent "Henry V" and a hundred more which should go up to a national children's library and be available for circulation.
We must not underestimate the child. We do not want to assume that the child only wants crime, violence and guns and blood before it is entertained. On the other hand, we must not overestimate the mental, moral and emotional stamina of the five, six and seven year old child who goes to the cinema, once, twice or three times a week. These children want, to some extent, what we teach them to want.
In the infra-red film demonstration in the House of Commons to which I have referred we watched the reaction of a children's audience to what grown-ups would have found a quite unsatifying film, a film which merely depicted a few incidents in the life of some Danish schoolchildren. The film was produced by a Danish film unit which was interested in children's education. In that case, instead of seeing children crouching under the seats because they did not want to see the film, because they were afraid to look until the killing was over, we found the children happy, eager, moving in their seats with excitement and, with eyes open, enjoying themselves.
Children like films about children. Children like to identify themselves with the child heroes in films for children, such as "Emile the Detective," "Huckleberry Finn" and "Treasure Island." Indeed, I sometimes think that one of the reasons for the tremendous hold which "Treasure Island" has on children is that they identify themselves with the young boy hero. And do not let us forget that hundreds of thousands of these cinema audiences consist of tiny infant children, and for them the type of film that is needed is quite simple and would be quite easy to provide in fair quantity.
The Wheare Committee made a recommendation to which I had hoped reference would have been made in this Bill. They suggested that the mere division of films into "U" and "A"—"A" films being films that were unsuitable for children and "U" films being films that one could not particularly object to children seeing—was a very negative approach to the question. Indeed, technically I have been mystified sometimes when taking my own child on the strength


of a recommendation of the British Board of Film Censors as to what that Board regarded as unfit for children to see and labelled "A" and what it considered suitable for young children to see and labelled "U."
We want a positive selection of films and, as the Committee suggest, the labelling of films as being eminently suitable for children—films bearing the label C. We should classify films, not censor them, and we should collect out of the great masses that there are those that we want the nation's children to see. At the same time we must deliberately and consciously create a great new kind of children's film drawn from the whole repertory of children's classic stories, legends and romances, nursery and fairy stories as yet untapped except by Walt Disney. He is a great genius of children's entertainment and has produced incredibly wonderful work despite the fact that he labours under the commercial handicap of having also to make his films profitable and entertaining to adults at the same time.
I remember seeing a great Russian fairy story film, exquisitely beautiful, called "The Stone Flower" and the Russian "Gulliver's Travels," a brilliant technical achievement of film entertainment, though marred by Soviet propaganda which perhaps did not matter as the dialogue was in Russian and the children would not understand it. We want the whole repertory of children's stories brought into the range of the children's cinema show.
I understand that some work has already been done by the Children's Film Foundation. We give it a very meagre annual allowance which I think we might very well increase. I would call the attention of the House to the very noble aim this foundation sets itself—the aim of making Great Britain the leader of the world in the provision of children's film entertainment.
There is one other point which I might mention in passing. In this connection I would say to hon. Members opposite that some excellent work has been done, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) has referred, by school teachers with film work in schools. I refer not only to educational and instructional film work but to the work that is going on in schools through film societies in creating a taste among youngsters

for films among those classified as entertainment. I would say to hon. Members opposite that it would be wrong to regard that part of education and the expenditure on it as one of the trimmings which we can throw away very easily if we wish to make an economy.
I hope that the Minister, when he gets down to carrying out this Measure, will implement some of the practical suggestions made by the Wheare Committee to which I have referred. I hope that this Bill will be a first step forward in a real advance towards the production of children's entertainment at children's shows to which no English children need be afraid of going.

6.9 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Those of us who have heard all the speeches made this afternoon on the Second Reading of this Bill will agree—and I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will inform his colleague the Home Secretary—that we have been imbued by two motives in participating in this debate. One of them is the common motive to assist in every way that we can the health and the moral welfare of children.
The other is that we are equally determined, while helping the child, that when the child is grown up we shall protect it against any undue interference once it is an adult, either from the local authority, or the State so far as censorship is concerned, with the freedom to do that which it is legally permissible to do. Those are the two features that have already appeared clearly and were made manifest by the speeches we have had from both sides of the House. Indeed, it is rare that we have a debate with so much unanimity. I am not referring to the little differences of opinion whether Scotland manages her affairs better than England, for I should not dare to interfere in such a subject.

Mr. Rankin: There is no difference.

Dr. Stross: I am told there is no difference. The Home Secretary made a speech in which he allayed our fears about certain parts of this Bill; but he did not allay all our fears. Early on in his speech he told us what we entirely agree with, namely, that no one who has looked at this subject carefully blames the cinema industry, or films seen by children, for


the apparent rise in juvenile delinquency in recent years. We know that we have to look deeper to find the real root of the problem. Whatever it be, it is probably a complicated and not a simple matter.
There is one other thing with which we would probably agree—I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary would agree—and that is that the Chinese were right when they said in the olden days:
When the pupil commits murder you should hang the schoolmaster.
That means that adult society collectively accepts for itself the onus and the burden of changes in the behaviour of its children. If those changes are for the worst, we should look upon adult society as a whole as being responsible.

Mr. Ede: I was hoping that my hon. Friend would not get on to the vexed question of the propriety of capital punishment.

Dr. Stross: No. It would be out of order to do so on a Cinematograph Bill. We will reserve that subject for another occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Test (Dr. King) spoke, in passing, about the positive aspect of this Bill. He wanted us not to lose sight of the fact that children really get excited by good films which are specifically made for them, as children—and earlier speakers on both sides of the House have said that in their view children are bored by the sort of thing that excites adolescents—and there are adolescents of all age groups. Children are immune from the things which excite their elders, and it is a waste of time offering those things to them. If they are imitative—and they are the most imitative animals I know—they should not be shown adults behaving in a way which they think is silly, because that is very bad for them.
The Children's Film Foundation have produced a number of films for us, but not enough to satisfy the children so far as quantity is concerned. We certainly have ample evidence that children are content with their quality and that they would far rather see that type of film than any other. Only two countries specialise in making films for children. My hon. Friend the Member for Test mentioned

them—the Soviet Union and ourselves—and there is a good deal of argument in intellectual film circles and among those who are interested, whether ours are better than those of the Soviet Union or vice versa. The fact is that ours, if not the best in the world, are the second best, because no other country has had the sense to realise that children should be catered for in this way.
Censorship has been mentioned again and again in this debate, as it was bound to be. Most of us take the view that the censorship of films—which came into existence, as it were sub rosa, so far as local authority powers are concerned in England and Wales—cannot be helped. It has existed for many years, mainly because it is not a central censorship, and we do not mind it so much. That is an important principle to bear in mind.
If we are to have censorship, for heaven's sake never let it be a Government or a central one. The advantage of local authority censorship is that those who censor are very close to the people to whom they say, "You shall not see this film or show." If the people who elect them on to the watch committee or local authority, as councillors or aldermen, take umbrage and feel that they are badly treated, they will know how to deal with them. Therefore the link is there. It is intimate.
In my own town of Stoke-on-Trent, the watch committee recently chose to ban a film called "La Ronde" and there was so much outcry in the Press and such a spirited attack upon the watch committee that the public received more edification, instruction and education than if they had all gone to see the film itself. I think that that is a good thing.
Having seen the film myself in London, I wondered whether we should not consider another type of censorship for those of us who are more mature than the younger people. I think it was Aristotle who would not discuss sex philosophy with men under 45 years of age. He was a wise person. I wonder whether we should not have a film censorship for those who are of mature years, forbidding us going to films which are—quoting the words of a 16th century quatrain—"The expense of spirit and a waste of shame." For people who are of mature age, we could say, "The expense of money and a waste of time." Perhaps we should


have that sort of censorship when we reach the age when we do not respond to such stimulation as that which seems to attract younger people.
Had this Bill been framed only to protect children from undesirable influences there could not have been very much discussion about it. Many speakers have told the Home Secretary how much we welcome those parts of the Bill. In that respect, apart from one or two Scottish Members, he has had no criticism, and even their criticism has been made in a specialised way. He has had criticism on two other grounds. One was on the question of safety measures by organisations which normally use sub-standard films—churches, co-operative societies, trade union lodges and, of course, political parties—and he has given us what he thought was complete satisfaction. But I asked him a question, and I should like to put it to him again so that we can get an answer tonight. Are we to understand from what he said that all the non-commercial organisations are to be exempt from safety measures?
The Home Secretary did say that, but did he qualify it later by saying that if they hire a commercial cinema to show any film there must be safety measures? I should not complain about that if we could also have the assurance that Clause 5 (3) will hold for the exempted organisations and that there will only be the safety measure and not the licensing obligation or qualification, and therefore no censorship. It is obvious that that must be the case. I am sure that the Home Secretary agrees, because what he said is qualified by Clause 5 (3).
It seems to me—although we should see it more clearly when we put down our Amendments and we see his—that we should be able to agree about this quite easily on Friday and that there will be no further difficulty. But, although that difficulty has been removed, it shows how careful one must be, because the Home Secretary has had to come to us with a Bill which came from another place, in which these points were not noted, and had we not had this offer from the Home Secretary tonight it would have meant that a publican who put a television set in his bar to amuse his customers would have had to obey all the Regulations which the Home Secretary might in future impose. A man could not sell a television set by giving a demonstration in

his shop without also being subject to this provision.
All that has been changed, with the result that the 10,000 projectors in use in this country—4,000 educational, 4,000 attached to industry and 2,000 with all the other organisations such as the churches, the trade union movement, public relations, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force—are freed from something which would have been burdensome and quite unnecesasry.
If we can have an agreement on that point, I can turn to the second question about which we are not happy and on which we hope the Home Secretary will accept our views as being reasonable. It has been put to him several times. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), made the point very clear towards the end of his speech. He pointed out the effect of Clause 5, in which the exemptions are mentioned, and said if the Bill were passed in its present form, then it would be bound up with fiscal policy in connection with the power of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to grant a certificate that the performance is free from Entertainments Duty.
This is an interesting point, and organisations interested in civil liberties have been looking at it, including the National Council for Civil Liberties; and I must confess that it was they who first brought it to my notice. Later, the T.U.C. noted it. We are very disturbed about it, and we put the matter very strongly because we do not see any difficulty to prevent the Home Secretary from agreeing with us that an Amendment on the point is required. If that is conceded, then by and large all is well and we can give wholehearted support to the Bill.
At present the Bill says that non-profit making organisations are not necessarily exempted from the need to obtain a licence; only those qualified for exemption from Entertainments Duty are given this second exemption. We should like to see it apply to all the really non-profit making organisations—except the specific type mentioned during the debate. I have never come across such an organisation as that, which is really a commercial organisation running shows on six days a week and in a commercial cinema. Even if it is theoretically non-profit making, if the Home Secretary thinks it should be


brought within the ambit of the Bill, I should not complain.
But, as the Home Secretary knows, we have in mind organisations like the Film Societies and other non-profit making bodies which are not commercial in any sense of the term. We want them all freed from the possibility of being brought into the net as a result of any change in a future Budget. For example, any Amendment to the Finance Act—and we should bear in mind that we have had this taxation privilege only since 1946—might bring all these organisations into the net; and they are organisations which the Home Secretary wishes to free and which we all agree must be freed. If they were brought into the net, they would be subject not only to Entertainments Duty but also to the need to obtain a licence from the local authority. They would be subject, in addition, to censorship and to all the safety measures. That could be the effect of a fiscal change in the future.
The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Legh) put the point early in the debate, and I am merely adding my words to his, because we think the point is really important. We do not think it will cost anybody anything. We are agreed that the certificate of exemption should continue to be given by the Commissioners. They have quite liberally interpreted the words used—namely, that the organisation must be non-profit making, it must be charitable or having charitable or philanthropic purposes and it must be partly educational. It is true that they say that organisations putting on a farce or a musical comedy would not qualify, but they then temper the wind to the shorn lamb by adding that an occasional farce and an occasional musical comedy by an organisation which is frequently putting on educational shows would be passed. We have therefore no complaint to make.
But does the Home Secretary appreciate what the difficulties would be in future? How could we campaign against some change in fiscal policy in the Finance Act, as we have been able to campaign in the past in the House? In this Bill we have had time to think about it, but a future change in the Finance Act could be slipped through so that we

hardly noticed it. That is why I am spending so much time on this point.
I should like the Home Secretary to look at another matter. It concerns the position in villages where films are shown in the local institutes—commercial films. The right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to bring those films within the scope of the safety regulations. That is all right. I only ask him that he should not make those regulations burdensome or onerous, for there will not be very much danger; and I see from the nod of his head that he will bear the point in mind.
There were two points in particular which caused us anxiety. On one of them, the Home Secretary himself has handsomely come to the House and put the matter right. The other point concerns the future of the very organisations in which we are interested, and which we want to see freed. If we can come to terms on that small point, I am quite sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will do everything they can for the children whom this Bill was intended to benefit.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to speak for only a few minutes, and in the first place I want to re-echo what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the great services rendered to the State by the Committee presided over by Professor Wheare. When I was Home Secretary, and in consultation with the then Minister of Education and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, I considered this matter, we had very grave doubts whether any Committee investigating this problem would be able to reach such a measure of agreement as to make legislation possible.
I think no small part of the achievement of this Committee was that, drawn as they were from the very widest range of interests, they were able to give the Government of the day and this House their wise and clear guidance on the issues which were raised by the influence of the cinema over children. I should indeed be lacking in ordinary courtesy to these people if I did not publicly acknowledge how very great their service has been.
I will not be drawn into the controversy about whether the English or the Scottish administration is the better. My own view is that English administration is very good for Englishmen; and if Scotsmen like Scottish administration, well, good luck to them. But I am quite certain that the House of Commons who passed the Cinematograph Act of 1909 would have been very surprised if they could have foreseen what the local authorities in England and Wales were going to do with it, because I am certain that at that time the House were concerned with preserving people from fires in this world, whereas the English local authorities have had their concern also about fire in the next world.
On the whole, I think, these powers which the English local authorities have managed to get from the judges, rather than from this House, have been wisely and discreetly used and have probably given English people a greater confidence in the cinema entertainment than they would have had if these powers had not been snatched by the local authorities.
This is very much a matter of education, especially those aspects of which we have been hearing tonight, and I very much regret that the English Ministry of Education, which was associated with the appointment of this Committee, has had no representative present during our debate tonight; because I should not like it to be thought that when the Bill becomes an Act all the responsibility will rest with the Home Secretary and that the Minister of Education can divorce herself from any other care with regard to this matter.
I share the views that have been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling and others that a great deal of nonsense is talked about the influence of the cinema over children. All my life, whatever a boy has wanted to do has been the cause of juvenile delinquency. In my youth it was what was called the "penny blood"—which always cost 2d. for a start. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Test (Dr. King) eulogise "Treasure Island." The worst hiding I had in my life was given me by a schoolmaster for reading "Treasure Island," on the ground that it was a "blood"—and if there is a "bloodier blood" I should like to read it. Today, because a boy likes to read, say, all those

comics that are now the subject of considerable attack, I do not think we need feel that he is likely to go very far wrong as the result.
I think also it is a good thing that we have imposed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has said, no national censorship; but we have managed to get that entirely illogical but quite useful body, the British Board of Film Censors to adopt standards that have come to be generally recognised. It is no part of the duty of the State—and I would say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Test—to try to invent new categories. That is a matter for the British Board of Film Censors and the various interests whom they consult, and of which, to a very large degree, they consist.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central in asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman to see if he cannot devise some formula with regard to this exemption that will not be tied up with the tax law of the country, because I am not quite sure what would happen if the Government of the day repealed all the Entertainments Duty. After all, either everybody would be exempt or nobody would be exempt because there would be no tax from which he could be exempted.
I have no doubt they would solve that question all right in Southern Ireland, but I cannot think it would do other than present the very greatest difficulties for us. I should think it would be possible to find some definition of these societies and other bodies which would be tied up with their functions and purposes without reference to the tax law, although I admit that, at the moment, it is a very convenient form of legislation by reference.
This is all I am going to say about Scotland. I do not take the view that Clause 3 (1, a) imposes on the local authorities the duty to draw up any form of regulation or condition that need of necessity be the same in the area of every local authority. Some local authorities will draw up conditions that will be vague and light. Others, of possibly more experience, possibly of stricter outlook, will draw up conditions that they regard as being suitable to their areas.
After all, at the moment the most amazing things happen even in this


country. There is—or, at any rate, there used to be at the time when I was actively associated with it—a joint committee that used to meet to consider the licensing of certain films that were regarded as being of doubtful moral character. There was the celebrated film, "No Orchids for Miss Blandish." That was considered by the Joint Committee for London, Middlesex and Surrey.
Certain members of the three Councils used to see these films in private and then decide whether it was wise that the general public should have an opportunity of sharing their entertainment. On that particular occasion Surrey decided it should not be shown at all in its area. London decided it could be shown provided certain additional cuts beyond those insisted on by the British Board of Film Censors were made. Middlesex decided that, as far as Middlesex was concerned, no harm would be done by its being shown. The consequence was that people living in Richmond had only to walk across the bridge to Twickenham to see it. That is an example of the way in which this system has worked in this country, and I would hope that on some occasions there could be some rather better co-ordination than that particular instance showed.
This is a Bill which is rendered necessary by the introduction of the non-flam film in large quantities, and also by the need for doing something to assist those who wish to do well by their children, to be assured that if their children go to the cinema under the conditions laid down they can have reasonable grounds for believing that no great harm will happen.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to meet the two or three points that have been made from this side of the House. They do not strike at the principle of the Measure. Indeed, I think he will probably agree that both he and my hon. Friends are trying to reach the same end; but, as not infrequently happens, there is some difficulty in finding the exact form of words that will give sufficient control and reasonable liberty at the same time. I am sure that if he meets them in the spirit which he has shown today we should be able to get this Measure on the Statute Book during the current Session.

6.38 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): It is a pleasure to conclude a debate of this kind when Members in all parts of the House are agreed both as to the objects of the Bill and, by and large, as to the methods proposed. I was very glad that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was able to wind up for his side, because, of course, he speaks with almost unexampled authority and experience on this matter, and he has succeeded, as he usually does, in introducing a light but balancing note which has brought the whole debate to a very good end.
The right hon. Gentleman raised one or two points, and, if he will allow me I should like to take up most of them as I deal with the various speeches which have been made, but I would at once say, with him, how much we all congratulate the Wheare Committee upon its work. I would also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, because he had a good deal to do with the appointment of the Committee. In this Bill, we attempt, as far as we can, to carry out the recommendations of that Committee. Where it has fallen short we shall, of course, be most ready to look at any Amendments which hon. Members may care to put before us.
The right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that it is not much good arguing whether the English system is any better than the Scottish system. It is a very good thing to say that the English system is best for Englishmen and the Scottish system best for Scotsmen. As long as the right hon. Gentleman will allow Scotsmen to come periodically to England to see that the English law is properly administered, nobody on this side will raise any objection. He was absolutely right in insisting that there should and must never be any national censorship, for that would be a calamity. We are entirely in agreement with him there.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) raised three points which I can deal with quite shortly. First of all he asked why we should insist that a non-commercial film performance in a commercial cinema must receive a licence for safety, since the cinema in which the performance takes place would in any case have the usual safety precautions. That is a proper question to ask, but I think the right hon.


Gentleman might be under a misapprehension. Our view is that if that film performance takes place in a commercial theatre for which safety regulations have already been laid down, that is all the licence that particular film requires. If the right hon. Gentleman is in any doubt about that and wishes to put down an Amendment, we will look into it, but that is my understanding of the position.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Do I understand from what the hon. Gentleman now says that, in spite of what will be in the Bill as a result of the Amendments promised by his right hon. and learned Friend, an ordinary non-profit making film shown in a cinema which has a licence will need no licence? Can it be shown without? Is that what I understand the hon. Gentleman to say?

Mr. Stewart: I think that is what it amounts to, but it is a little technical, and if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will try to get the right form of words. I think we are agreed about it, but I should not like to use words here which were not strictly and technically accurate.
The right hon. Gentleman, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Legh), the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), raised the vexed question of the Entertainments Duty criterion. There is a pretty simple answer to that. The bodies of which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen were speaking—and I have belonged to such bodies myself, film clubs, and so on—have various regulations about entrance. Some of the performances are open only to their members, others are open to anybody without paying anything, but sometimes people have to pay.
It is only with the third class that we are here concerned, and it seemed to us that up till now there was no way of testing whether that third class came under a category which should be exempted except the test of the Finance Act 1946. I still think that is a very good test, and I cannot think of a better one. But again, if hon. Members can think of a better test I invite them to let us have it, because we are all agreed on what we are trying to do. We want to exempt that kind of educational, cultural, society from unnecessary impositions, but we must be careful that we do not open the door to other things.

Dr. Stross: It appears that we are agreed, and I think our fears can be met by an alteration in wording. We hope to have advice about it before we discuss the Bill again. The present system of giving exemption through the certificate is all right, but we do not want it linked to the fact of its being a budgetary matter, because that may change overnight, as it were, in any particular year, when we shall be landed high and dry, may be in 10 years' time when we have forgotten this debate. We merely want to safeguard against that in the future.

Mr. Stewart: I quite understand. Let us try to get together to see if we can produce the right answer.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether the regulations would, before being drafted, be brought before all the various interested bodies for consultation. The answer is, certainly, yes. I have already, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, given that assurance to the bodies concerned in Scotland, and I am very glad to be able to repeat it now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield was concerned about the showing of commercial films in village halls. I think he was worried principally about the safety precautions required. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that we must impose safety precautions in the showing of films, or any kind of performance, in village halls, even if they are non-commercial films.

Mr. Reeves: And non-flatus?

Mr. Stewart: Even non-flams, because I am sure the hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about this, would agree that the sort of precautions both we and he would want, even when noninflammable films were used, would be precautions about, for example, emergency lighting, proper marking and supervision of exits, and arrangements to prevent the obstruction of gangways, exits and so on. That is what we mean by these safety precautions in village halls, and they must be insisted upon. It would never do if we relaxed in that respect, and I think that on reflection my hon. Friend would consider that wise.

Mr. Legh: I understood the Home Secretary to say that he was proposing to put down an Amendment which would


free from any safety precautions he might make as a result of this Bill performances when exempted exhibitions took place with non-inflammable film in halls which were not licensed as cinemas. I therefore asked: If that is so, why should the fact that non-inflammable film is used for a commercial performance make any difference from the safety point of view? I asked him to explain the concession he was going to make in the showing of noninflammable film in village halls.

Mr. Stewart: That is a perfectly good point to make, but I still think that however we may draw up regulations, it would be most improper to allow performances of this kind to take place in the normal village hall without seeing that the elementary precautions for safety were provided.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I apologise for interrupting again, but that is not the fear of hon. Members on this side. We know that under the 1909 Act the fact that a licence had to be obtained on safety grounds meant that all sorts of other conditions were attached and a censorship could have been imposed, classifications also promulgated and so on. We are afraid that the village halls in which these performances or exhibitions will take place may have to comply with all sorts of other conditions, apart altogether from and in addition to safety regulations which all of us want to see imposed.

Mr. Stewart: I dot not think there is any fear of that. There will be no evidence of that unless the regulations are so framed, and I can only ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that we have no intention of framing regulations which will have that effect. Here again we want the co-operation of the whole House on this matter, and if my hon. Friend has any doubts I invite him to put down an Amendment and let us see what it looks like. I think I have made our position fairly clear.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) referred to the possibility of fire in places like church halls where cinematograph performances take place. As my right hon. and learned Friend has shown, his intentions in this matter are clear. He proposes to introduce an Amendment. I think that in this case,

as in the case of village halls, we must leave the local authority, whoever it may be, to ensure that some elementary precautions are taken against fire.

Mr. Reeves: The whole point is that there is a fundamental difference between the celluloid film and the non-inflammable film, and the danger inherent in the non-inflammable film is infinitestimal. The question of safety in terms of the celluloid film is out of all proportion, and it is this vital distinction which we want to impress upon the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Woodburn: I think that the point puzzling everyone is this: The celluloid film universally requires a concrete or steel box in which it must be used. Precautions against that kind of danger are not necessary in a hall where non-inflammable film is used. In the setting up of a cinema—I have had experience of this—there is always the danger of bad and loose wires lying about the floor with inflammable material, which does constitute a great danger. I think that no one is against—and I hope no one will be against—taking precautions to meet this kind of danger, but I think that what everyone wants to know is whether these licences would be prevented if there is not the existence of a steel box or some elaborate precaution suitable to the cinema.

Mr. Stewart: I thought that I had brought out clearly that that is the proposal which my right hon. and learned Friend said he would put in the form of an Amendment. Let us see the Amendment put down, and then, I think, hon. Members will find it perfectly satisfactory.
I want to turn to Scottish matters raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray), by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tradeston, among others. I hope that we shall not get confused about this matter. It is quite true that the cinema industry in Scotland has worked exceedingly well. It has been very public-spirited and adopted voluntarily a system which was, shall we say, compulsorily applied to England. All that is perfectly true.
My hon. Friends then say, "Why are you altering things and bringing in Clause 3 to apply to Scotland, if things have gone on so well without it?" I must appeal to the sense of logic of my various hon. Friends. First, is it not a fact that the film companies in Scotland which run many of the Scottish cinemas are the same companies which run the cinemas in England? It is, therefore, very difficult to justify one set of rules for some of the cinemas and another set of rules for others.

Major Anstruther-Gray: As this works very well, surely the burden is upon my hon. Friend to show good cause why this satisfactory state of affairs should be deliberately interfered with.

Mr. Stewart: What I was saying was a preliminary to what I was about to say. I say, with respect, that Scottish and English children do not react so differently to films as all that. I have seen this myself. I have examined this problem with great care, both as a parent and, shall I say, as a temporary Minister, and I have not seen a distinction. I have also seen some of the pictures to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central refers. I think that they were seen by Scottish children as well as by English children. In many cases the same films are shown in Scotland as in England.
I do not think that it can be reasonably argued, except in the extreme case of Glasgow, that social conditions are so completely different that we must have different laws. I am speaking with very strong, an almost Scottish-Nationalist, enthusiasm. I am trying to state the facts as I understand them. It is true that some Scottish local authorities—and I do not think that all my hon. Friends are aware of this—have already attached conditions other than safety conditions to the licences which they now grant. I have a list of the local authorities in Scotland who do so to prove this. For example, the County of Fife lays down:
That no film, other than photographs of current events—which has not been passed for universal exhibition by the British Board of Film Censors shall be exhibited in the premises during the time that any child under or appearing to be under the age of 16 is therein.
That is the law also in Huntly and Lockerbie.
The same kind of rules are to be found in Selkirk, West Lothian, Edinburgh,

Dumfries, Helensburgh and Dunbarton. There are seven counties and nine burghs in Scotland where non-safety conditions relating to the attendance of children are normally attached to the licences, which is some proof of the need to vest Scottish licensing authorities clearly with the power to attach such conditions. When we ask in the Bill that local authorities should be given these powers, we are only asking for something which is established, if not universal, in many parts of Scotland.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman says that it has been established. Has that ever been challenged in the courts of law in Scotland? Has there been a prosecution about this?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member has touched the heart of the matter. There has been no challenge. The matter has not gone to any court. All that has happened is that one Lord Advocate after another has advised the Secretary of State, throughout the years, that the courts would take a rather stiff and narrow view and those local authorities, if challenged in the courts, might be proved to be right or wrong. All I say is that they are doing that now, even though the doubt exists.

Mr. Woodburn: Even though there is no definite law, the authority has the right to withhold licences. Even without putting it on paper, it can let the cinema proprietors know pretty well that there will be no licences unless they carry out reasonable precautions in their cinemas.

Mr. Stewart: I want to convince my hon. Friends upon this point. They will observe that the Bill does not require local authorities to do any more than just to consider these matters and to consider what, if any, conditions should be attached to licences as to the admission of children. What we are thinking of here is the admission of children to what are generally known as "A" films.
I have met the various film exhibitors' authorities in Scotland. We have had all this thoroughly examined. We have had three deputations from them, the last of which I met myself. The real trouble for the Scottish cinema proprietors and others is the "A" film They are not really much worried about anything else.
What is the trouble about the "A" film? It is true that the Wheare Committee criticised the "A" film rule in England and said that it is unworkable. It is true, as hon. Members have said, that it leads to solicitation and all those other evil things. On the other hand, what are we to do? The "A" film is labelled as being not very suitable for children. Are we to open every cinema door to let all the children run in to see all the "A" films, or are we to take some kind of reasonable precautions?
I do not think that it is for the State to lay down the rules and the regulations and restrictions, but it is, surely, right to give to Glasgow Corporation or Dumfries Town Council, or any other authority, the right to say, "Let us look at this and see what is the right thing to do." That is all that we ask in the Bill: that the authorities should consider whether certain steps should be taken.
The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said that he did not like Clause 3 (1, a). That subsection the House will notice, lays down that
It shall be the duty of the licensing authority in granting a licence … to impose conditions or restrictions …
and so on. What this subsection is meant to do is to cope with the "X" film. The "X" film is the film that is declared by the Board of Censors as entirely unsuitable for children to see. I am sure that no parent in the House wants us to slacken off our regulations and allow children to see that kind of film. It is true that ultimately it always should be for the parents to decide—the responsibility should rest upon the parents; but in overcrowded places like Glasgow and, no doubt, other similar cities in England, it is a tremendous burden that the mother of a large young family has to bear, and the temptation to let these children go out to the cinema in order, as one hon. Member said, to get them off the street, is very great. Therefore, the cinemas also should have a responsibility in this matter, and what we are seeking here is to place upon the cinemas a reasonable measure of responsibility in the exercise of their powers.
I agree with hon. Members in all parts of the House that the influence of the

cinema upon children is tremendous. It might be for good, it might be for bad. I do not take the defeatist view that it is all for bad. I do not believe that delinquency arises mainly from the films, although, no doubt, films are a contributory factor. I know as a parent that the films offer to children enormous joy and, perhaps, inspiration—if they are the right films.
Let us, therefore, aim not so much at restriction as at the positive side, and let us see whether by one means or another we cannot greatly increase the number of what we would like to call "C" films, films directly and specially for children. Are there not, by this and other means, ways in which we can extend that list of films? The source of children's stories is endless; we have in the world a perfect treasure house of magnificent plots for children's films. The Board of Censors cannot lay down a "C" film standard because there are not yet enough "C" films available, but as soon as there are, I am sure that it will be the desire of my right hon. and learned Friend to do what he can to ensure that these "C" films, specially suited for children, are made available in these children's places.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will not press their differences, especially when I tell them that, having seen the exhibitors and recognising their case, I have written, with the authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, offering them a very substantial concession. It is conveyed in a letter which I have sent them and which says that if the Bill becomes law, it is our intention—at the moment I am speaking only for Scotland—to issue a circular to Scottish licensing authorities, first of all enclosing model licensing conditions, but suggesting that it would be desirable not to enforce the "A" film rule until the Consultative Committee has made its recommendations.
We have set up this Consultative Committee. Let us give it a chance to offer its views. Why be rigid in anything that we do, either for or against, until this specialist committee has reported? I have met the children's sub-committee of that Consultative Committee and I was very much impressed with its members. They understand the problem of children. They are taking evidence in Scotland—in Edinburgh and Glasgow, for example—


and in England, and I most earnestly ask the House not to come to conclusions, or to ask the authorities to come to conclusions, until that expert committee has made its recommendations.
The circular would also suggest that where licensing authorities intend to impose non-safety conditions, they should discuss the arrangements for enforcing them with representatives of the cinemas in their areas. They told me that that was not being done. I asked that it should be done. Moreover, the exhibitors have been told that we are prepared to include in the regulations under the Bill, about which they would be consulted, a provision making it a competent defence against a charge of breaking the "A" film rule that the child in question appeared to be over 16 or that he appeared to be accompanied by a bona fide parent or guardian. One of the arguments of the trade was that they could not tell whether a girl was 16, or more, or less. I should not know how to tell either. It is a fair defence to have thought that the boy or girl was over 16. To be wrong is just a pity, but one cannot be proceeded against for that.
These seem to me to be substantial safeguards for the cinema trade in Scotland. In addition, as the House knows, the Bill provides for the first time a right of appeal for a cinema exhibitor to the sheriff against any licensing condition, a procedure which will enable unreasonable conditions to be challenged. In all these circumstances, I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will not feel that Scotland has been let down. I must tell my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, however, that if he puts down an Amendment as we think he intends to do, we shall not, unfortunately, be able to support it. That covers the Scottish case.

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman be putting on the Whips?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think there is any need to put on the Whips, because I hope to convince all my colleagues Conservative, Labour, Liberal, National Liberal and the rest—on all these matters.
The hon. Member for Test hoped that the regulations to be made by my right hon. and learned Friend and by the Secretary of State for Scotland would take account of the Wheare Committee's recommendations about ages and so on.

The answer is that that is precisely our intention. I think I have covered the points which hon. Members have raised.
It is my pleasure to be able to conclude the debate for the Second Reading of the Bill. I do so with a great deal of happiness, because I think that we have together—all parties of the House, down through the years—produced a series of proposals which, if they are carried out with reason and sense and with a liberal outlook on the part of the trade and local authorities, should do a great deal for our great and growing cinema industry, and still more for the precious children of our age.

7.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: I am afraid that I must throw a small dash of cold water on to the generous enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary. I do not think he met the point which was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) for after all what was he offering? He said, "Let us pass the Bill and then I shall send a circular round saying that it is not to operate." That is surely an anomalous way of going about it——

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I said that I would send a circular advising authorities to wait for the recommendations of the committee on the "A" film. That is the essence of the offer.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: But would it not be better to say, "Let us wait until the committee reports and then, if necessary, we can pass the legislation." I will make an offer now on behalf of my hon. Friends, and I am sure on behalf of all Scottish Members, that if necessary there will be no difficulty whatever in getting a Bill passed on the nod after Ten o'clock, considered in Scottish Grand Committee, where we have no great congestion of business at present, and then we can get it passed here without taking up any time at all.

Mr. Rankin: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought in Members on this side of the House, may I say that I should like to add a proviso to his offer, that if the Under-Secretary is not going to accept it we will divide the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That may well be, but I trust that will not be necessary. We are hoping to bring my hon. Friend to a state of sweet reasonableness, for the difficulty is that time is short. This legislation has come down from the Lords and it has moved rapidly. I do not think that any disadvantage would arise if we afforded time for further consideration as far as Scotland is concerned. After all, the Under-Secretary has stated that local authorities, who wish to attach conditions of this kind, have done so, and nobody has challenged them. He has paid tribute to the public spirit of the cinema trade in Scotland in working a voluntary agreement over 18 years.
If I may say so, I did not find myself impressed very much by either of his general points. The first was that it was a little awkward for a company operating in both kingdoms to find itself operating under slightly different conditions north of the Tweed to those prevailing south of the Tweed. I would remind my hon. Friend that even the law operates under different conditions north and south of the Tweed. If a person hurls himself into the Tweed and is taken out on the Scottish side he is dried, and sent home, but if he is taken out on the English side he is charged with attempted suicide. There are other differences north and south of the Tweed.
Then my hon. Friend referred to the fact that children would react to the cinema very much the same throughout the whole country. That is very true, but so do children all over the world and, in many cases, so do adults. Yet for all that there are differences in the way in which we approach events in Scotland, and we see no particular reason why these differences should be overlooked on this occasion. I think we should give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a further opportunity of considering the matter, and he might easily find on the Order Paper an Amendment in the terms of the speeches of my hon. Friend's. I hope he will not close his mind on the subject, because it would not be difficult at all on a matter of this kind, which does not raise any great party point, to secure further legislation that would apply only to Scotland.
We hope that my hon. Friend will see the wisdom of this matter and let the issue be considered by Scottish Members. It is true that it will be considered by a

consultative committee, but such a body has small Scottish representation. The Scottish Members of this House are as good a consultative committee as can be got anywhere. They are representative of the entire nation. There is no particular reason why they should not be given the opportunity of applying a little special thought to the problem.
The general question of the children and the cinema is something which might well be given further thought. I do not quite hold with the belief in the terrible dangers that may be caused to children going to see a film which is marked "A," which, after all, means that it is more suitable for the adult population. It may be a film about Einstein. I do not think that small children would suffer very much through seeing such a film. There was something much more terrible in my own constituency a short time ago, the brutal murder of a small child which sent a shock of horror through the city.
In the congested conditions in which we live in Glasgow, there are many places where the parents are most unwilling to allow their children out of their sight for very long. It does happen in England that children hang about the cinemas soliciting adults to take them in. That is a danger which parents have to consider. There are places where a mother might feel happier by having her baby of four with her in the cinema where an unsuitable film is showing, of which it would not understand anything, rather than that it should be abroad, and the fate overtake it which overtook that four-year old baby in Buccleuch Street not many days ago.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider these points sympathetically. I am sure he will find that the Scottish Members will not be unreasonable, particularly if he attempts to bring us along with him. At the end of the day we may find a happy solution for these difficulties.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Oakshott]—for Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (POISONOUS SUBSTANCES) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.18 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill deals with technical matters affecting the safety of workers in agriculture that have been studied by expert committees, first of all by the Gowers Committee on Health, Welfare and Safety in Non-Industrial Employment, and then in more detail by the Zuckerman Working Party on Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture, which was set up by the former Minister of Agriculture.
The Bill itself is designed to carry out the recommendations made by these bodies, and I should like to express our grateful thanks to the members of these committees for the study they have made of these problems, and particularly to Professor Zuckerman, who has spent a lot of time and trouble in advising on the precautions that should be taken, and who has now gone on to study other aspects on which we also need advice, particularly, the possibility of the effects upon people other than those directly concerned in the use of the chemicals to which this Bill refers.
The need for precautionary measures arises out of the increasing use in agriculture of certain poisonous substances used as insecticides or weed killers mainly by spraying. There are, no doubt risks involved to the health of the workers using them, and we have to see that these are given the greatest practical measure of protection. This Bill will allow Ministers of Agriculture to make regulations for that purpose. A good deal has been done in the meantime by advice, but we cannot be sure that voluntary arrangements will be sufficiently widely followed to meet the need.
I am sure the House would be interested to know the steps which have already been taken. Last year, following the receipt of Professor Zuckerman's recommendations, the Ministry of Agriculture agreed with the organisations representing farmers and farm workers, agricultural contractors and insecticide manufacturers, recommendations for the voluntary observation of precautions. These were put by the organisations to

their members and were publicised by the Ministry of Agriculture.
This year, a revised scheme of precautions, prepared in the light of last year's experience, was agreed with the same organisations. Wide publicity was given to it, and the organisations sent out recommendations to their members and branches. Arrangements were made for five members of the outdoor staff of the Ministry of Agriculture's Labour Division to act as observers this year. Their duties were to secure the greatest possible observance of the voluntary precautions scheme by persuasion and advice and, in addition, to assist as far as possible any employers who were having difficulty in carrying out recommended precautions and to obtain information.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that the observers have given much information and advice to employers who have asked for it, and have obtained a very great deal of valuable information for the Ministry on current practice. It will be our intention, if the House sees fit to pass the Bill, that these men should be employed on work as inspectors under the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. The experience they have gained will be very useful for that purpose
The voluntary schemes to which I have referred have already been in operation and are designed to safeguard the health of the workers who use these substances. At the same time, further investigations in other fields are being carried out both by the Agricultural Research Council and by Professor Zuckerman's working party. The second stage of the work of Professor Zuckerman's working party is now near completion and we hope to receive the working party's report by the end of this year. When that report has ben submitted, the two main aspects of the problems arising from the use of toxic substances will have been covered, namely, the risk of poisoning to employees using these substances, and the possible risk to consumers from the use of these substances as insecticides or weed killers.
A further important aspect, on which much apprehension has been expressed, is the probable effect of the use of these substances on the wild life which is present when the spray is employed or which feeds on the crops shortly afterwards. It appears that the only solution is to find an insecticide which is not toxic to


mammals or birds. This is one of the aspects upon which the Agricultural Research Council are concentrating. If such a substance can be found, the danger to operators, to consumers whether human or livestock, and to wild life will be avoided.
I would emphasise that the Government are well aware of the dangers that may result from the use of new substances of this kind before their full effects over the whole field of Nature can be accurately known and assessed. We have accepted the conclusion of the Zuckerman working party that the use of these substances must go forward. The Government are seeking to ensure that all the possible repercussions of their widespread use are carefully studied so as to reduce the risks as far as possible.
On reviewing the general position up to the present time I can say that our experience is that the precautions are now generally effective, and that a good deal of attention has been drawn to these risks and the ways in which they can be avoided. Nevertheless, it is clear that these risks exist. I think it is generally accepted in all parts of the House and in the country that, over a large part of this field at any rate, the recommended precautions should have a statutory backing and that definite obligations should be placed on those concerned, both employers and employees.
We shall propose to make regulations at an early date after the passing of the Bill on the lines of the voluntary precautions already recommended. In doing so, we shall take full account of the views of all those concerned. This has always been the intention of the Government and, indeed, of my predecessor. To make this abundantly clear we accepted an Amendment in another place for the addition of subsection (6) of Clause 1, which provides that we shall consult organisations representative of the interests concerned before making our regulations.
The kernel of the Bill is Clause 1, which contains the main regulation-making powers. It seeks to protect workers both in the actual use in agriculture of these substances and in work generally on land where the substances are being used, for example, for the protection of fellow-employees who might be affected. The regulations may be made

jointly by the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, or separately for England and Wales and for Scotland. It is the intention, where the requirements are the same for the whole country, that the regulations should be made jointly. It may be that on occasion agricultural conditions will require some differences in the regulations. In that case, it will be possible to make separate regulations for England and Wales and for Scotland.
The Bill applies to Great Britain. It does not extend to Northern Ireland. Legislation on this subject for Northern Ireland would be a matter for the Northern Ireland Parliament. I understand that the Government of Northern Ireland are considering the introduction of similar legislation, but I would inform the House that there is no spraying with these poisonous substances in Northern Ireland at the present time.
The regulations will be made by Statutory Instrument subject to negative Resolution procedure. They will be very largely technical in character. I think that this procedure will commend itself to the House as giving the necessary measure of Parliamentary control over regulations of this kind. The remaining Clauses provide the necessary machinery and provisions for enforcement, penalties, and so on.
I think the Bill is generally accepted as a useful and necessary Measure. It has been prepared in general agreement with representatives of farmers, farm workers and agricultural contractors who will be particularly affected by the regulations, and also of the insecticide manufacturers who are naturally also concerned with these matters. This is a small Bill, but I think it is an important one. I hope it will commend itself to the House and that it will have a unanimous Second Reading and a quick passage into law.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: We thank the Minister for his lucidity in introducing the Bill, and particularly for his statement on Professor Zuckerman's report and the further action which he proposes to take. This Bill is the result of the working party which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to report upon the application


of the Gowers Report on agriculture. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend were here he would express his thanks for the work of the Zuckerman Committee. They examined this matter carefully, and upon their Report this legislation is now being based.
I want to say, in passing, that I wish the other Ministers of the Government would act with equal celerity on some of the other recommendations contained in the Gowers Report, particularly as they apply to my own industry, which happens to be railways. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to pass that remark on to his colleagues who are responsible for that industry.
The trade unions catering for the agricultural industry undoubtedly desire the passage of this Bill. They have pressed for it for a long time, they recognise its importance, and I am sure they will welcome its passage even at this late stage of the Session. It protects employees against the negligence of employers and, equally important, protects the employees against the consequences of their own possible neglect. We welcome the Bill as a further stage in the protective legislation which has been passed by Parliament over the last 100 years.
The brevity of my speech must not be construed as indifference to this Bill. Indeed, we are so anxious to see it on the Statute Book that we shall facilitate its passage in every way, even although the Government have decided to introduce it and to ask for its Second Reading eight days before the end of this Session.

7.31 p.m.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: I do not in any way wish to oppose the passage of this Bill, but in connection with it I want to make one or two remarks. We should not be doing our duty as a Legislature if we did not add this Bill to the list of Acts which have been passed in years gone by to protect workers in all industries. The distribution of poisons on the land is a recent practice. We can all recall the tragic case which occurred not long ago, where one or two men died as a result of distributing these poisons on the land. We wish to avoid a repetition of that at all costs and I am glad that time has been found, even at this late stage of the

Session, for legislation which seeks to avoid such tragedies.
Having said that, let me go on to say that in this little Bill of a few pages and few Clauses is contained the most perfect and abject confession of the failure of man to use the fruits of the earth as he should. The fact that we have to squirt poisons about the countryside is not an evidence of advancing civilisation but of a return to the darkest ages. The fact that we have to squirt poisons on a growing plant means that we have neglected the soil in which that plant grows. The reason for this Bill is the complete stupidity of man in dealing with the soil, which is the very basis of his life.
All over the countryside today we have ever more plentiful crops. We take credit for that, but increasingly we have to take chemical action either to make those crops grow or to prevent them from being destroyed by pests. It is no use scientists or doctors trying to tell me or any other person with common sense that if we squirt poisons on the leaves of a plant they do not get down to the roots, especially if those roots happen to be potatoes. I am convinced that a large number of the new and growing illnesses which we have to meet not only in this country but all over the world today are largely due to the increasing use of poisons in the growing of food and in its protection when it has been grown.
I feel sure that this Bill would never have been necessary if we had been a really civilised nation—not that we are any more to blame than any other country—but mankind is playing the fool with what he depends on most, which is the soil. The fact that we need this Bill is the greatest indictment of so-called civilisation which we could possibly have. While I hope that we shall pass this Bill quickly because in the circumstances it is necessary, at the same time I hope we shall remember what caused those circumstances and, before it is too late, take steps to prevent their recurrence.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: I, too, wish to support this Bill, because it is desirable and necessary that those who have to work with these highly toxic sprays should be required to take the necessary precautions to safeguard their health. I cannot go all the way with my


hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) in his "back to nature" call in farming. After all, if we were to let nature have full scope in the way of locusts, aphides, and so on, we should not be growing anything like the crops that we succeed in growing and which we desperately need today. We have to use science to control some of the enemies of man when they take his crops, otherwise we should be a still more hungry world than we are.
What concerns me is that this Bill does not go nearly far enough. We are taking action to safeguard the health of those men employed by contractors and farmers who are using two types of spray—the dinitro compounds and the organo-phosphorus compounds. Both of them are recognised as deadly poisons if they are used consistently, that is to say, if a man is in contact with them day after day. What we are not doing under this Bill—and I am not happy about the omission—is to prevent the use of these two groups of sprays until such time as the scientists can offer us alternative and equally effective methods of dealing with weeds and insects.
After all, we grew perfectly good crops of Brussels sprouts before we ever heard of the organo-phosphorus compounds now used to kill the aphides which prey on that crop. Similarly, we grew very good arable crops without using dinitro weed killers. When one receives reports, such as I have had within the last fortnight, showing the effect of these particular sprays on wild life, it makes one feel that we are not going far enough in this Bill.
In my hand I hold an account of the death roll on one field of Brussels sprouts of 46½ acres. Within a day or two of the spraying of that crop with one of the organo-phosphorus insecticides there was a death roll of 175 animals. It is a horrible record. Included in it were 19 partridges, 10 pheasants, 129 wild birds such as blackbirds, finches and tits, and seven rabbits, two hares, two rats, four mice, one grey squirrel, one stoat, making a total of 175 dead animals picked up in this one field of Brussels sprouts. I have no doubt that if a search had been made, of the hedgerows there further casualties would have been discovered.
There is another consideration. We are using these sprays under conditions which are not controlled. The other day a train companion told me of his experience in Norfolk. Walking through a woodland plantation, he found a strip completely dead right across the middle. He could not make out what had happened. It looked like poisonous spray defect, but it could not be drift. What had happened? He thought it out and confirmed that what had happened was that a helicopter using this poisonous spray had emptied its tank over this woodland on the way back to the depot.
That is a terrifying prospect. Supposing it had happened to empty its tank over a party of children coming out of school. As I see it, we cannot afford to use these highly efficient but desperately toxic sprays unless we have a much closer control over their use. I would like to see the Minister insist that the scientists who work with the Agricultural Research Council press ahead as fast as possible with their search for alternatives to these very toxic groups of sprays, the dinitro and the organo-phosphorus. Until such time as the scientists cannot offer us alternatives I would feel much happier if we prohibited the use of these two types of spray.
It does not amount to a great deal. I am told that they amount to only about 10 per cent. of all the weed spraying and insecticide spraying which is done. If it is only that small proportion it will not have any harmful effect on agriculture to be denied the use of these two groups of spray for a few years longer. I ask the Minister to consider this problem very carefully and to take action before we have a terrible fatality which will force the Minister of the day to take action.
Having expressed this view, I give this Bill my blessing. It certainly does a very desirable thing in protecting the men actually working with the sprays. That is all to the good, but there are wider considerations to be taken into account.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. John Morrison: I wish to support this Bill and I welcome it. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on producing it before the end of the Session. I am sure it will be welcomed by all those who are working in agriculture and will be of great help to them.
I would express the hope that those men working with sprays will take particular care regarding protective clothing and of their arms. Whenever I watch someone spraying down wind I am always alarmed at the amount of the spray which might go into his eyes. Very often he does not make full use of any form of protection for the eyes.
I cannot support in full what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). I think we must march with science in agriculture, though I am a great believer in the old-fashioned farmyard muck.
I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) about the future investigation of these poisonous sprays. Only this afternoon I attended a meeting of the British Field Sports Society, with which, as the Minister knows, I am connected. It was representative of various bodies who look after wild life and in particular birds of all sorts. It was unanimously agreed that the Minister should be asked to investigate further poisonous sprays in order that the wild life of the countryside should not be damaged. At the same time, it was appreciated that no longer in any way must he impede the march of agricultural progress.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would not my hon. Friend agree that far more importance than looking for alternative poisons is the need to investigate the reasons why poisons have to be used at all—to go to the root of the trouble rather than to palliatives afterwards?

Mr. Morrison: I was about to go to the root of the trouble in this way. At the end of the winter before last a number of cattle on my farm died through lack of magnesium. It may well be that the root of the trouble lies there, because if the poisonous sprays kill all of what used to be called weeds, which have the longer tap-roots, we shall not be getting those plants which should be bringing up some of the elements which form an essential part of the animal food. I believe there is considerable scope for

further research in order to make sure that we are not killing some of the longer tap-rooted plants which are vital, though in limited quantities, to the welfare of stock.
I do not intend to delay the House longer except to welcome the Bill once more. I hope the Minister will be able to investigate further the question of applying sprays on the land as a whole and especially those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury.

7.47 p.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: With the leave of the House, I would say that I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their speeches, because I am particularly interested in all these problems and it is a good thing that there should be on the record examples of what is taking place.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) I would say that it is estimated that over 2½ million acres were sprayed with weed killers this year and over 90 per cent. of the acreage sprayed was dealt with by hormone weed killers, which are not Very poisonous. The Bill deals with those who are employees in agriculture and under Clause 1 (3, a) there is power if necessary to put a general prevention on the use of any weed killer if it is thought desirable.

Mr. Hurd: Would my right hon. Friend say a word about the work which we hope the Agricultural Research Council is undertaking to find alternatives?

Sir T. Dugdale: I did mention that in my speech. They are working very closely now in trying to find an alternative to this very dangerous weed killer. If they can find an equally effective weed killer without the danger, then not only the workers but the animal and plant life will be protected.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (POISONOUS SUBSTANCES) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified]

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the protection of employees against risks of poisoning by certain substances used in agriculture, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Minister in carrying out that Act.—[Sir T. Dugdale.]

Resolution to be reported upon Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS)

7.50 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That the Draft Ploughing Grants (No. 2) Scheme, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st July, be approved.
This is the second scheme to provide grants for ploughing up grassland, and it derives its authority from the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Act, 1952. There are two main provisions; first of all, to continue the £5 per acre grant from 1st June of this year until 31st May next year. It broadly follows on the ploughing up grant introduced by my right hon. Friend on 5th February last and ending on 31st May this year, which was also for £5 per acre.
There is just this difference between the second scheme and the first one in this respect. The first scheme was a ploughing-up grant for grassland which had been down for four years or longer in grass, whereas this second £5 per acre grant is for grassland which has been down for three years or longer.
The second part of this scheme is a £10 per acre grant for grassland which was sowed down before 4th May, 1939—in other words, before the war—and in respect of which there would be abnormal costs in bringing the land into cultivation.
I believe that the continuation of the first £5 per acre ploughing grant and the introduction of this new £10 per acre ploughing grant for this very old grassland

of exceptional difficulty will together be a substantial help in maintaining and increasing the acreage of tillage crops in the country, and in providing the extra food that we so badly need.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: There are some questions that I want to ask about this scheme, but first I wish to make one or two observations upon it. Yesterday, we were dealing with another aspect of agriculture, but, as I see them, both the aspects of agriculture under consideration yesterday and today are very closely related.
Certainly, under the Bill considered yesterday, we set out to get much more beef. We want more "red meat." I certainly do not claim any authorship of that phrase, which will be familiar to most hon. Members of this House, but, if possible, we want to get more meat, but not at the expense of the other things that we grow or produce. What is wanted is a net gain from our agriculture, rather than a substitution of one crop for another.
I can imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary has read the "Observer" pamphlet entitled "Rethinking our Future," which makes the point that more than 10 million acres of permanent grassland—nearly a quarter of Britain's agricultural land—still needs rejuvenation, and I am sure that hon. Members will also remember Dr. William Davies's calculation that, if we switch 8 million acres of permanent grass to ley, we could carry 9 million more sheep and 6 million more cattle.
Much of the old permanent grass will scarcely keep a beast alive, and certainly will not fatten one. I believe that is true, and is within the knowledge of Ministers now sitting on the Government Front Bench. We all know land of that sort. The Minister has hopes of an additional 400,000 calves a year, and, if Dr. Davies is right in his estimate of the possibilities, these could be quite easily supported without any drain at all upon our importing resources. Indeed, if we could get this and keep it up, and if we could rejuvenate the pastures which the "Observer" pamphlet asks for, we could, in fact, lessen our importing expenditure.
Part II of this Scheme is particularly welcome, for it certainly does set out to


tackle some of the older pastures, and does it by means of a suitable carrot, and £10 per acre is a suitable sized carrot I think it will have its effect, and it is worth doing, but I must say that I am a firm believer in a mixture of both carrot and stick, and I wonder if, when the Minister devised this part of the scheme, he was taking into consideration the judicious use of this carrot and of the stick with which he provided himself in the Agriculture (Special Directions) (Maximum Area of Pasturage) Order.
He came down to the House and asked for that Order, and I believe that he should use his powers in suitable cases. Certainly, we want to see a greater amount of these old pastures broken up and suitable lees introduced into them in order to increase the amount of foodstuffs available in this country, and, undoubtedly, it can be done.
There are a few other questions which should be answered before we allow this order to pass. I should like to know how much of the £3.4 million in the price review for 1952–53 will be used under the No. 1 Scheme which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned? How many acres will, in fact, rank for grant under that first scheme? I should also like to know how much it is proposed to spend under the No. 2 Scheme. Has the hon. Gentleman any estimate of the number of acres which will fall for payment of the £5 per acre grant, and how many acres will fall for payment of the £10 per acre grant in Part II of the No. 2 Scheme.
I should also like to know from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary if the county agricultural executive committees will certify for the Minister on the reseeding under Part 1 of this No. 2 Scheme, and what sort of points the Minister had in mind when framing the proviso to paragraph 3 (1) of this Scheme. Am I right in thinking that not all land under grass since before 4th May, 1939, will qualify, and, if not, who will decide whether the land is suitable for the £5 an acre grant or the £10 an acre grant? Will the Minister give us some idea what sort of land will be suitable for payments under the second part of the No. 2 Scheme.
My final question to the Minister is: will there be any discretion to pay any amount per acre between the figures of

£5 and £10 per acre? Will the payments have to be either £5 or £10 per acre, or will there be, as between those two figures, a certain discretion left to the Minister in cases where the land would not, in the opinion of the Minister, qualify for the payment of the full £10, but where a payment of between £5 and £10 would be justifiable? I think these are some points which ought to be answered at this stage, and I shall be grateful if when he comes to reply the Minister will tell us some of these things.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: Many of us welcome this as an emergency measure which will, we believe, get more land brought into cultivation and into full use for food production. I have particularly in mind the second part of this scheme which allows the Minister to operate grants of £10 an acre for the ploughing up of land which is exceptionally difficult to bring into cultivation. Until now we have not really had any legislation that helped farmers who fall outside either the Hill Farming Act or the marginal land scheme.
Under this scheme, we are offering all farmers, whether they happen to be upland or lowland farmers, this assistance towards the cost of reclaiming grassland of very long standing which is exceptionally difficult to bring into cultivation. I can think of some land which I know very well on the top of the Wiltshire Downs. It is inherently quite good land with deep clay on the top of the chalk downs, but it is studded with stones and a certain number of bushes.
The reclaiming of such land is an expensive job for the farmer to tackle entirely by himself. It may cost him £25 or £30 an acre to remove the stones and bushes in order to plough for the first time and get it ready for cropping. But, with this assistance, I think we shall find several thousands of acres of that type of land brought into cultivation. Therefore, I warmly welcome this Measure on those grounds. It will help farmers to help themselves.
I would say to the hon. Gentleman opposite that this is surely not a matter of issuing any kind of directions to farmers, because a larger proportion of the money involved will be their own money and not Government money. But it will be a great assistance and inducement to


them, and will bring into fuller use a lot of land which so far has not been used in our food production drive.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: I only want to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary one question, which is whether old orchard land where trees are scrubbed will qualify for the grant provided the orchards are old grass and one of the scheduled crops is to be grown on them. My reason for asking this is obviously the need for scrubbing old orchards, particularly plum orchards, which is bound to be an expensive business, and will probably cost £40 an acre to do it. If lucky, one might, of course, get £10 an acre for firewood, but if that land is going to qualify for the grant then I am sure it will assist in the clearance of old orchards which could be much better employed in growing fruit.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: By leave of the House, I am glad to see that this Order is receiving such a favourable reception on both sides of the House, and I thank the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) for giving me notice of the various points he wished to raise. I will deal with them in the order in which he put them to me.
He asked, first, how much of the £3.4 million granted at the last Price Review will come in for payment this year. The answer is that only part of that sum will be paid this year under the No. 2 Scheme because payment under that scheme will not start for another month or two. Therefore, there will only be some four months or so in the present financial year in which to make payments under the scheme.
Taking the picture of the two schemes together, the first as well as the second, on which the hon. Gentleman also asked a question, because of the unexpectedly high acreage ploughed under the first scheme which has resulted in the total cost for that scheme being £5.2 million instead of £2.5 million as estimated, what the farmers will be under-recouped on under the second scheme in this financial year they will have been over-recouped on in the first scheme so that at the end of the financial year they will have received roughly what they expected.
With regard to the acreage ploughed up under the first scheme, the final acreage figures are 610,000 acres for England and Wales, 150,000 acres for Northern Ireland, and 280,000 acres for Scotland. The total acreage of 1,040,000 thus greatly exceeded our most optimistic hopes, which I am sure is a matter of great satisfaction to the whole House.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's next question, about an estimate of the number of acres which we expect to plough under the £5 an acre scheme, the answer is that it is extremely difficult to give more than a very broad estimate of what might be expected because so many factors come into the picture, but we have made what we think is a safe estimate of 800,000 acres for the United Kingdom. That compares with the one million acres which we got under the first scheme. We think that the backlog, so to speak, of the older pasture was probably largely caught up in the first scheme, and, therefore, that we cannot safely expect more than 800,000 acres for the United Kingdom under the second scheme. The figures for England and Wales represent 450,000 out of the 800,000 acres.
With regard to the £10 an acre scheme, we have estimated for 50,000 acres in the first year of the scheme. That figure, again, must be regarded only as an estimate. It is quite impossible to foretell what sort of response there will be. All I can say at this point is that the farming community seem to be showing a great interest in the £10 an acre scheme, and I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman opposite welcome the scheme in such warm terms. I am with him and with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) in thinking that it may do much to bring into cultivation land which has for a long time been largely unproductive. How far it will go towards bringing the 12,000,000 odd acres of permanent pasture in the United Kingdom into cultivation remains to be seen, but at any rate it can be regarded as a start.
The next question I was asked by the hon. Gentleman was whether the county committees could act for the Minister under Part I. The answer is that the county committees will act on behalf of the Minister and will use their judgment to decide when it is proper for a farmer


to re-seed a particular field instead of putting it down to crops. The particular factors to which they will have regard will be such matters as high rainfall, accessibility, and so on, when deciding whether a field should be put back into a new ley or should carry a cereal crop, or some other kind of crop.
I was also asked whether all land under grass since before 4th May, 1939, will qualify for the £10 an acre grant. The answer is that all land will not automatically qualify. It will only qualify where the preparatory work of clearing and ploughing it is altogether abnormal.
The sort of land which my right hon. Friend has in mind in this connection is land such as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has described, provided that the cost of clearing the stones is sufficiently high and that depends on the number of stones; land in the Midlands where there is ridge and furrow land of exceptional dimensions which is extremely difficult to work down to a level field, and also orchards which have been grassed down, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) suggested. Some of that land is particularly fertile. Indeed, it was a reclaimed orchard in East Anglia which this year grew three times the average quantity of corn. It is land of that kind which can be reclaimed in this connection and which is of particular value.
The final point about which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East inquired was whether, with regard to the £10 an acre scheme, the county committees would have any discretion as to whether they paid the full amount of £10 per acre. In connection with the £10 per acre they would have no discretion at all. The land has to qualify for the whole £10 an acre or none at all. The £5 an acre scheme would have the same condition attached to it as the first scheme. That is, where the Committee consider the operation does not justify the whole £5 an acre, they may pay such lesser sum as they think appropriate.
I think that that answers all the points put to me. I believe that this second ploughing scheme is something of great value to the farming community and that it will be of great help in obtaining the extra tillage that we want. I hope that the House will be prepared now to give it their approval.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Ploughing Grants (No. 2) Scheme, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st July, be approved.

8.11 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): I beg to move,
That the Draft Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) (No. 2) Scheme, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th October, be approved.
I do not think that it is necessary for me to run over the arguments that have been put forth in regard to this scheme because our scheme is almost identical with the scheme for England and Wales. But there is one point which I should like to put on record in order to remove any confusion that may exist in the minds of our small landholders. We have a special problem in Scotland because of our crofting areas, and our scheme differs from the scheme for England and Wales to the extent that we make a special provision to meet the case of the small landholder who is unable to plough the minimum required of one acre.
Just as under the fertiliser scheme, we make it possible for the small landholders to club together. Where the land is one acre or more they will rank for grant, the application being put in by the committee in charge of a crofting township. We also continue in this scheme our practice in Scotland of paying the grant to the person who actually did the work and bore the expense, in preference to the English practice of paying the grant to the occupier of the land when the operations are completed.
These are the only differences in our scheme as compared with the scheme for England and Wales, but it might be of interest to give the figure of the acreage which qualified under the first scheme, the 1952 scheme, which is now ending. I have to announce that in Scotland we had 25,872 applications and the qualifying acreage was 288,133 acres.

Mr. Champion: How does this compare with the estimate?

Mr. Snadden: It was some 88,000 acres more than we expected, so I think we can say that this £5 an acre ploughing grant has not only assisted the growth of tillage acreage in Scotland but has effected a great gain in coarse grain.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Richard Thompson.]

Orders of the Day — MAURITIUS (ECONOMIC PROBLEMS)

8.15 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I wish to speak this evening about a small island, far away in the centre of the Indian Ocean. Although we have quite a long time before us I do not intend to detain the House unduly. Still less do I intend to copy a famous Member of this House in the 18th century, Chatham, the Elder Pitt, who once spoke on a similar theme and mentioned the word "sugar" five times consecutively.
The Island of Mauritius is often quoted as the classic example of a colonial economy. Here we have an island of something like 700 square miles with a population of a little over 500,000 dependent upon one industry—sugar. I think that I am safe in saying that sugar accounts for something like 97 per cent. of its exports in value. The island was uninhabited before Europeans came to it and now there are a little over half a million. The density of the population is something like 620 per square mile, with a population in parts of the sugar plantation belt in the centre, of something like 1,500 per square mile, barely existing on agriculture.
It is a beautiful island and, like the Seychelles nearby, has a beautiful climate. Most of its liabilities are manmade and they are many. This is monoculture with a vengeance and that is a thing which we wish to avoid in our Colonial Dependencies. Much of the food and all the clothing and all consumer goods are imported. In the past the sugar prices have been incalculable. The island has been swept and the plantations beaten down by cyclones and the sugar industry therefore is not as efficient as it might be. I am almost tempted to quote a lengthy article from the 1947 Report of the Mauritius Economic Commission, but out of mercy for the Minister I shall not do so. I think that the proceeds of the industry have been unfairly divided as between employers and workers.
Summing up, what type of balance sheet do we have? We see a people with

widespread malnutrition, a people that are riddled with anaemia, malaria and enteritis, people who are badly housed and badly educated. In fact, quoting the Report, one can say that something like 60 per cent. of the houses are dark, low and unhygienic, but I hasten to add that the people themselves keep their homes scrupulously clean.
It is easy to point an accusing finger at all this and to say that this ought not to be. What is to be done about it? To give authority to what I am saying I should like to quote out of the Report for 1945–51, entitled "British Islands in the Southern Hemisphere," the comment of Sir Donald MacKenzie Kennedy, who was Governor of the island between 1942 and 1949. He said:
The root causes of discontent in this insulated community are economic and not political …. Good crops, good prices and cheap food would go far to assuage the present discontents.
If we are to help these debilitated people we need to spend a great deal on social services—health and education, for example. We have to find the money. The whole revenue of the island is little more than £.4¼ million. I have studied very carefully the economic report for 1947 and I have also looked at the 10-year development plan. They are admirable as far as they go, but I should like to put some questions to the Minister and make one or two suggestions.
First, there is the question—which we meet with in the West Indies, who have a somewhat similar economy—of the excess of population. One hears reports of schemes of emigration to North Borneo and Tanganyika. Both Tanganyika and Madagascar are adjacent. They have many parts which are uncultivated and I surmise that they are both possibilities for emigration in regard to this excess of population on Mauritius.
Secondly, there is the question of unemployment. I am told that the labour position is deteriorating, and I quote from a letter which I have received from a dependable source in the island. It says:
During the deader periods of intercrop, unemployment of unskilled labourers will be sharply felt owing to the recent introduction of weed-killing spraying solutions which will reduce the major weeding field works. The skilled workers are already being squeezed out and dozens of them are venturing out to African colonies in search of employment. The black-coated classes are the worst and while


the whites of this class have protection in the firms and industries owned by the French-whites, the coloured are in a pitiable situation and loudly crying for redress.
Thirdly, there is the question of sugar. I understand that the Ministry of Food have allocated a quota of a little over 350,000 tons. The producing capacity of the island is in the neighbourhood of 600,000 tons and they have actually produced a little over half a million tons in the past year. We want sugar badly. Mauritius is in the sterling area and I would ask the Minister why we cannot allocate to Mauritius a larger quota. Another aspect, which is just as important, is that there is great dissatisfaction in this industry as between millers and planters. Lest anyone should think that I be guilty of making biased statements, let me give a short quotation from the Mauritius Economic Commission Report of 1948. I would add that things are no better four or five years after.
The Report says:
… that is little doubt that, in view of the relative risks involved, the millers' proportion of the earnings of the industry is too high. In the opinion of some members of the Commission, the lesson to be learned … is that millers occupy a dominating position in the industry out of proportion to the function which they perform.
The production of sugar, at least in the circumstances to be found in Mauritius, is primarily an agricultural operation. It is the growers who carry most of the risks and who should receive most of the profits. In fact, it is found that millers retain a substantial profit not only in good years but in bad years as well, when the whole loss (or more than the net loss) falls on the growers.
This is not good enough. In saying that I am backed up by the official "Blue Book"—if I may so call it—of the Commission which was sent out some four years ago.
Today, the balance is still always in favour of the miller. I am told that something like 94 per cent. of the money in the rehabilitation fund went to the millers. I would ask the Minister if it is a fact that the key post of accountant to the Central Board needs to be filled. This is the Board which assesses the respective amounts to be given to the millers and the planters. I ask the Minister to consider sending an independent economist to assess the share as between these planters and millers. I am told that there is a great deal of friction. I think I am safe in saying that there is an appeal which is

coming before the Privy Council in this connection.
Fourthly, in this economic field, what about an outlet in the Commonwealth for the tea and tobacco of Mauritius? Earlier, I talked of monoculture with a vengeance. This island needs a much more diversified economy. Is it possible to give them some outlet for their tea and tobacco in other parts of the Commonwealth?
There are many other things about which one could talk. There is the need for a planters' laboratory on the island, to assess the sucrose content of the sugar. There is need for a co-operative distillery, because many of the planters feel that, like Barbados and Jamaica, in the West Indies, they could have a market for rum here when they have distilled their molasses. They would need the latest equipment and an up-to-date distillery; but that is a financial matter.
Mauritius is on the eve of general elections. If one looks at the past history of the island—and even today this is the case, in my opinion—there is no doubt that the Government have been over-centralised and are much too distant from the people as a whole. This is quite a common experience in many other countries. I do not believe that they will ever control wages, profits and employment effectively until they have their responsible government under—and I stress this—a party system which will cut across the evils of communalism.
They have perhaps one of the most obvious examples of a plural society. They have French, they have coloureds, they have both Hindus and Mohammedans, and they also have Chinese. There is, therefore, the need of a party system to cut across these communal difficulties which have existed for so long. Not until there is a party system and responsible government will these people of the island, who up to now have been debilitated both physically and politically, get out of the hold of the reactionary elements which in the past have dominated, and at the moment still dominate, the industrial life of the island.

8.29 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): I am sure that the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) for raising the economic and, indeed, other


problems which face Mauritius today, and I welcome the opportunity of spending a little time in reply. I hope he will not mind if my answers are staccato, for I will try to cover as much ground as possible.
The hon. Gentleman began by describing the many economic liabilities of Mauritius as man-made, and in general terms one could not cavil at that description, because many of the liabilities from which we all suffer are man-made, and some of them are even Government-made, although, of course, not during the life of the present Government. But he spoke of the cyclones on the island almost in the same breath as he talked about the liabilities of Mauritius being man-made; and the cyclone is an instance of something which is natural or divine—the hand of God—which certainly has had a great effect upon the economy of the island.
The hon. Member also said that the health of Mauritius was very bad, and here I might give one figure in which the House will be interested: the incidence of malaria has been reduced to one per cent. of what it was, which is a great tribute to the advance of medical science. At the same time, I agree with him in deploring some of the housing accommodation in which the population live and in wishing that we could overcome that problem quickly. It is not at all easy.
Next, the hon. Gentleman went on to analyse the revenue, which is quite considerable for an island the size of Surrey. It is about £6,000,000. I think the schemes of development which the Government of Mauritius have laid out are admirable, but of course, as the hon. Gentleman said, there remains much the same problem in Mauritius as that which faces, and I quite frankly admit baffles, the West Indies.

Dr. H. Morgan: It is worse in the West Indies.

Mr. Lyttelton: This is of the same order and is a very baffling problem. We must, therefore, pay careful attention to the question of emigration, and again I am grateful that the hon. Member for Rugby has raised this question, because it is something which we must examine and in which we must try to achieve an

improvement. He spoke of emigration to Tanganyika and North Borneo. I can tell him that, in connection with North Borneo, the two Governments are reexamining the subject and are in close correspondence at this very moment.
There is a trickle of emigration to Tanganyika, but it is no more than that. I have some hopes that, with the projected trade school which will seek to train more artisans, we can make that trickle into a noticeable flow. That is possibly the right direction in which to tackle the problem of emigration—to get the artisans who are needed in Tanganyika. That project, I am sure, will have the hon. Gentleman's support, and we shall try to push on with it.
The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go too deeply into the reasons, but I am not optimistic about Madagascar as an outlet. Indeed, I think the reasons are quite understandable. I am sure that the committee which is being appointed on emigration will do good work, for it is one of the problems which no survey of the economic situation in Mauritius could possibly omit; and that, no doubt, was the reason why the hon. Member for Rugby put it first among the problems in his review.
He made some comments about unemployment and quoted a letter, which he had received from a responsible source and which contained rather gloomy predictions of what will happen in the future. So far, I have no information at the Colonial Office that unemployment is at all serious, other than the seasonal fluctuation in employment which is inevitable in an agricultural economy of this nature. On the contrary, the information which I have received—and this is perhaps not quite a fair answer to the hon. Gentleman—is that during the cropping season employers are sometimes alarmed about the lack of labour.
The hon. Member mentioned earlier in his speech that he thought that the sugar industry was inefficient. At the same time, this letter rather complained of the effect of modern methods of growing sugar upon employment in the island. Those two things are not exactly contradictory, but we do find that during a transitional period particularly, labour is displaced by the use of new methods as part of continuing research which has made Mauritius one of the most efficient sugar producing countries.
The hon. Member asked some questions which are very often asked about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and also the International Sugar Agreement. Why could not Mauritius get a bigger quota? Under the Commonwealth Agreement those quotas will come up for review in 1953, and Mauritius has a very good case to get her quota revised. But under the International Agreement those countries which are short of their quota can transfer their quota to the countries that are capable of growing more, and I think, as far as my memory and information carry me, that the production of sugar in Mauritius is not held back by any Agreement.
Nor has there been any difficulty in marketing up to date at a satisfactory price all she can grow. I may express the hope that, since the total sugar quotas of the British Empire and Commonwealth are much higher than the present production, there will be still left a large gap which Mauritian production will be able to fill.
The hon. Gentleman touched upon the rather vexed question—I think this is really the particular point he wanted me to answer—of the share of the small planters and millers in the rehabilitation fund. The percentages he quoted, I think, were only approximately correct, but I am informed that a representative committee has now recommended legislation, which is under review, and which is designed to divide the rehabilitation fund by agreement. I am also told that at the present moment there is a difference about those proportions. I have never seen any share of a central fund about which there was not disagreement. It is a very healthy sign that there is. My present information is much more optimistic than that of the hon. Member, but I feel that if a satisfactory arrangement cannot be reached we shall have to take—or rather the Mauritian Government will have to take—other lines to get a settlement; but, so far, I am told, it is likely to be settled.
The hon. Member asked me a question, to which I do not know the answer, about a vacancy for an accountant on the Central Board; and whether I would consider sending an economist out there. As a general rule the sending of an economist to a far distant part of the world is not a policy I find particularly

agreeable, but since the suggestion has emanated from the hon. Gentleman, to whom I am very grateful for raising the matter of Mauritius, let me assure him that I will give it careful consideration—especially if an economist can be found from the quadrangles of the university I used to grace so long ago.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is it not a fact that this key post of the accountant who advises the Central Board in this matter of assessment is empty at the moment? That was my point, and if it needs filling, could the right hon. Gentleman send out some independent economist—or accountant for that matter—who could adjudicate?

Mr. Lyttelton: I will certainly look into that matter. I think the post is vacant. I cavil only at the suggestion that an accountant's is a key post—but that may be no more than the opinion of an industrialist who is more keen on the man on the shop floor than the man in the office. But we will let that pass by today. I mention this only because of the constituency from which the hon. Member comes—which is sometimes described not only as Rugby.
Next, the hon. Member touched, I think, upon the outlets in the Empire for tea and tobacco. Tobacco does represent a rather difficult problem, since at present the yield of amerillo is so high compared with that of exportable tobacco that the cultivator is impelled to grow it by economic facts; he likes to grow the crop he can sell in Mauritius itself, and is not paying full attention to the export of tobacco, which would be a very valuable advantage to our total supplies in the Empire and Commonwealth.
We can be more optimistic about tea because the high quality of Mauritian tea has been commanding a good market at a little under 4s. a lb. Since tea is, speaking agriculturally, a complementary crop to sugar, and since sugar is to many of us consumers a complementary commodity to tea, it would seem to be a highly felicitous combination and one which we ought to encourage. Measures are being taken to try to damp down—if that is the right term—the local consumption, which appears to be very high, in order that more of this tea, which finds a market abroad, should be exported for the general good of Mauritius.
I am sure that this is a useful line—and this is by no means the only part of the Commonwealth territories having what the hon. Gentleman described as a mono-culture, depending almost on one crop—because it must be a matter of prime economic importance to try to diversify the crops, just as in our big industrial areas we try to diversify the industries in order that the incidence of economic blizzards upon a particular commodity may not ruin the whole economy.
The hon. Member also said that there was need for a co-operative distillery. Looking at it from this end of the world one would be inclined to agree with him, but we have a very energetic officer in charge of the co-operative department in Mauritius, and I feel sure that this should be a matter for local initiative. This officer is very unlikely to let a chance of getting a co-operative distillery go. It is not a matter which I think we can initiate from here.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman said that the Mauritian Government was over-centralised. That may perhaps be a slight over-emphasis, considering that Mauritius is only about the size of Surrey—and I am sorry that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who is so much an expert on local government in Surrey, is no longer on the Opposition Front Bench tonight. I think that what the hon. Gentleman said was perhaps a little exaggerated.
The hon. Member for Rugby went on to sing the praises of the party system in relation to Mauritian affairs, and looked rather menacingly at me across the Floor of the House as if it was my duty to create a couple of parties in Mauritius, or any other Colony, in order that the party system might arrive by my genesis rather than by the parthenogenesis, which is the only way in which I think parties can be begun.
Among the many other duties which have been laid upon the Secretary of State for the Colonies—such is the contradicting or confirming information which appears in the newspapers—this is indeed a new one which rather frightens me, that I should be asked to be responsible for creating a party system. I might perhaps meet the hon. Gentleman by saying that I should be glad to see Mauritius

so far along the path of progress that it could enjoy a party system, when we might see debates upon the Adjournment in the Mauritian House in very much the same way as we are witnessing this one this evening.
In conclusion, let me again thank the hon. Gentleman for raising these matters. We will take up any of the suggestions which I have not covered. I am sure the whole House is grateful to him for raising the subject.

Orders of the Day — KENYA (MISSIONARY SOCIETIES)

8.45 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I shall not complain at all if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies cannot stay to listen to me, because I have not been able to do him the courtesy of letting him know that I should be making a point on a quite different subject. I was not aware that an opportunity for raising this small point would arise, but, as it has arisen, I should like to rescue from the obscurity of a Written answer to the last Question on the Order Paper yesterday, a statement which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to make, because it corrected a misunderstanding or a misapprehension which he created last week, on Thursday, in the course of supplementary answers which he gave.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I would point out to the hon. Baronet that although he is perfectly in order in raising this matter, he places the Minister in a difficulty because, without the leave of the House, he has no right to speak again on this Adjournment.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I might wait to ask leave of the House until I am able to ascertain whether I can make any sensible answer to the hon. Baronet, and so keep myself in reserve, if I may.

Sir R. Acland: I do not think this is a point on which I and the right hon. Gentleman are likely at this stage to find ourselves in any serious disagreement, although we may have been in very serious disagreement if we had discussed it on Thursday night, because on Thursday, when asked by my hon.


Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) what were the causes of the outbreak of violence in Kenya, the right hon. Gentleman said:
One, which perhaps will strike hon. Members as being rather curious, is that many of the tribal dances and other means of 'letting off steam' have been suppressed by the missionaries …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c, 394.]
This statement has obtained wide publicity in some of our British papers, and there is a reasonable likelihood that it will be copied in other papers abroad. The game of baiting the missionary is quite a popular one, although I think a rather mistaken one, because, although missionaries have no doubt made mistakes from time to time, there are no other principles except those to be found in the Sermon on the Mount with which we can cope with the problems that arise in the Colonies and many other places. That being so, I think that on the whole, we ought not to allow currency to any unjustifiable charges against missionaries.
It is not true, in any serious sense, that the tribal dances have been suppressed by the missionaries, as the statement, in answer to a supplementary question on Thursday, seems to suggest. On the contrary, if any tribal dances have been suppressed at all, they have been suppressed not by the missionaries but by the Government. Therefore, the impression given that the Government had no responsibility for this, and that the missionaries were entirely to blame, was a false one, and one which, if it had been allowed to remain uncorrected, would have done a great deal of damage in ways and places where it would have been very difficult to detect that any damage was being done, and very difficult to follow it up and correct it.
I therefore put a Question on the Order Paper on Monday last. It was put down late; I am afraid that it was one of the very last Questions, and it received no oral answer. My only purpose in speaking at this late hour is to bring this matter, as I have said, from the obscurity of a Written answer on Monday, and to put on the spoken record of the House an answer from the right hon. Gentleman which, provided that it can be as well-publicised as was his earlier statement on Thursday, would be completely satisfactory to me and to members of missionary societies who have expressed to me their

real and acute distress at the misunderstanding which might have arisen from the earlier statement.
The answer, to which I should like to draw attention, is to the effect that
Tribal dancing is controlled under bye-laws.…
Those byelaws are, of course, the bye-laws of Government, and not the byelaws of missionaries.
Missionary societies"—
says the right hon. Gentleman in his answer—
naturally and rightly advise their followers against taking part in certain dances held to be incompatible with the Christian faith."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 69.]
Indeed, so they do, but that is far different from saying that tribal dances are suppressed by missionaries.
If a missionary makes a convert and advises him as a Christian that there are certain dances and tribal rituals in which he should not take part, it is entirely voluntary whether that Christian accepts the advice or not. He may accept it, he may reject it, but at any rate that advice can have no possible force of law upon anybody else.
If the tribal dances have been suppressed they have been suppressed by Government regulation; and if the suppression of tribal dances have contributed at all to the outbreaks of violence, which are so universally regretted at this time, then it is Government and Government authority which must bear responsibility for any mistakes that they have made in this matter, and missionaries must fairly and squarely be exonerated.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that point and that his answer showed that that was so. I hope he will not at all resent what would otherwise have been a rather discourteous action on my part in raising this matter so suddenly just when a fleeting opportunity arises and without telling him that I was going to do so.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Lyttelton: By leave, I will make a very short reply. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) has, I think, trespassed greatly, not on my patience, which is illimitable, but upon that of the House, in raising again a matter to which he himself confesses that he received a


perfectly satisfactory answer no longer ago than yesterday. I do not know what is going to satisfy the hon. Baronet or how many times something must be said before he is inclined to believe it.
He has also made an entirely false point, that "suppressed" necessarily means "suppressed by law." Would it be very shocking if I was to say that missionary societies had suppressed polygamy? I do not think so, because polygamy is not part of the social customs which are usually blessed by the Christian faith. That is all that was meant, and since there was some misunderstanding I corrected it. I am very glad to correct it again if there is a misunderstanding, but I have in front of me what I originally said:
that many of the tribal dances and other means of 'letting off steam' have been suppressed by the missionaries …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 394.]
That seems to me to be a statement of fact. It is not a criticism of missionaries at all. It is the inevitable part of their teaching.
If the hon. Baronet chooses to read into the word "suppressed," "suppressed by law," then of course I was saying something which is palpably inaccurate, but I was not doing so at all. My analogy is a perfectly good one, but as the hon. Baronet and others have been particularly tender about this matter and are ready to think that anything that is said is said in criticism, I am very glad to correct it. I am merely stating a fact, and it is a fact which must be mentioned whenever we look at the underlying causes of the unrest in Kenya.
The plain fact is that the lives of many Africans have, through the impact of a much older civilisation, become in their view very drab, and they seek outlets, and not by any means always desirable outlets, for their emotions in such things as secret societies.

Orders of the Day — JOCKEY POOL (COMPLAINT)

8.54 p.m.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: I welcome this opportunity of the House finishing its business early to raise a matter for which I have been balloting for the Adjournment Motion since last February. The matter concerns one of my constituents, who is a worker in a dockyard and who happened to get a correct solution in a jockey pool.
In these jockey pools, one has to forecast five correct solutions in order to win money. My constituent was successful in getting a completely correct result, but although this happened over a year ago, to date he has not received his money. I should like to point out at this stage that the majority of football and jockey pools are completely honestly run and that I am not suggesting that this particular firm is dishonest, but at the same time I feel that these football and racing pool firms who make quite a considerable sum of money are not run as well as they might be and there should be more control over their activities. I am not at this stage asking for legislation, but trying to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that a lot more could be done to see that the interests of the individual are looked after.
I have heard from this pool, which is Empire Pools, Blackpool, that although they admit my constituent got a completely correct result they are not satisfied that he got it honestly. I must say that to begin with I was not satisfied myself, so I took every possible step I could to find out whether his solution was come to by fair and proper means or whether he had cheated. After hearing his explanation, I am more than satisfied that he is honest and absolutely right and that he has got a correct solution which ought not to be queried by any football, jockey or other pool.
It is a difficult thing to get five correct jockeys in a pool. I am a racing man and interested in the sport, but I have never succeeded in getting five correct myself. I have given up trying, and a lot of other people in the country are going to give up trying unless we get the public to understand that these things are honestly run. It may be said that it would be a good thing if they did stop trying, and I do not mind if that


is the solution, but I am here trying to look after the interests of a poor man who has not got the money to fight in the courts. He has been to a solicitor and has been advised that he has a case which he can bring before the court. A barrister in London has given a ruling that he has a case, but at the same time it would cost him £1,000 or more to fight it. I have written to this Blackpool firm of pools and have told them that it is their duty either to pay or to prosecute. They could not just let it go by default because the man could not afford to go to law——

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton): If this constituent had a claim, has the hon. and gallant Member referred him to the legal aid section which undertakes litigation on behalf of needy litigants.

Brigadier Clarke: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention, but I did not personally introduce him to legal aid. However, the solicitor acting for him has informed him that legal aid is not available in such circumstances, and I must agree that it should not be possible to get free legal aid to try and fight the pools, because everyone in the country might be at it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: There has been a previous case of that kind.

Brigadier Clarke: I understand that it is not possible to obtain legal aid.
I should like to continue with my story, which concerns a constituent of mine, T. Carter, a labourer in Portsmouth Dockyard, who got a solution which was in every way correct. The pool wrote to me to say it was correct and that it was posted at the right time. However, the first jockey of his five was not a jockey who was shown to be riding at any meeting in the country that day. His name was not printed in any of the national newspapers as riding a horse, but the promoters of this pool discovered that this jockey was picked up by the owner on their way to the racecourse, and half an hour before he rode the horse he did not know he was going to ride.
I can sympathise with the pools in believing that this man, living down in Portsmouth, would not know that the jockey was going to ride a winner when his name did not even appear in any newspaper. I still maintain, however,

that a winner can be picked for these pools by writing down a series of numbers, 1, 3, 9, 27, by divine inspiration, by star gazing or by crystal gazing, and that by these or any other methods a correct solution may be arrived at. I do not believe that the Blackpool Pools, or any other pools, have a right to say "You have not stargazed correctly." We have seen a lot of stargazing in the last six years from Members now on the Opposition side of the House, but things are better now. However, this man got a correct solution.
I will tell the House how he got it. He was an ingenious bird. He took in the weekly "Sporting Life," and he studied the matter during the week. He decided what five horses were going to win on Friday and, having decided that, he decided what five jockeys would ride those five horses. When he got to horse No. 1 in the first race of the day he discovered that the jockey who would normally have ridden that horse had another mount at another place. He had the ingenuity to look up the question of who might ride that horse instead of the jockey who was riding at another meeting. He picked out a jockey called T. Mahon who was second string. This jockey T. Mahon was picked up on the way to the racecourse. He did not himself know half an hour before that he was going to ride that horse, but he won. That name appeared in the jockey pool that my client sent in.
What makes the matter more difficult for the pool promoters to understand is that the horse which my client—I mean my constituent—thought was going to win was the favourite. T. Mahon would have normally ridden it, but it was scratched. This jockey was picked up as a chance rider who had not got a ride that day because his horse was scratched. In point of fact, the horse he rode did win. There was a very good reason why my client put that jockey down, and no reason at all why the pool should not pay.
I should like to point out that these pools have the most elastic rules. They can so arrange the thing that if you win and they do not want to pay there is no reason in the world why they should.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I have listened to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for some time and I


am now wondering what Ministerial responsibility there is for the case that he is putting.

Brigadier Clarke: I should be the last one to try to place any responsibility on the Home Secretary or on the Attorney-General for this matter, but at the same time I think this is an interesting point. I understand that I can raise a matter on the Adjournment provided I do not ask for legislation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If there is no Ministerial responsibility it cannot be in order to raise it.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it not the right of any hon. Member to ask the Attorney-General to see that the law is being properly administered?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know what the Ministerial responsibility is. It is for the Attorney-General to say, but I am just wondering what it is.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: Is it not the responsibility of the Law Officers of the Crown to explain why the Legal Aid and Advice Act is not being properly used? So far as I understand the position, legal aid can be refused only on the grounds either of excessive means—my hon. and gallant Friend says that this is the case of a dockyard labourer—or that the man has not a reasonable case. I venture to submit that while we are inquiring into whether or not the Legal Aid Act is being properly administered, my hon. and gallant Friend is in order in discussing the question of whether or not legal aid is available to this plaintiff.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is raising a much narrower point, which normally would be in order, but we have been listening to a much wider discussion.

Brigadier Clarke: I will try to keep within the narrow point put forward by my hon. and learned Friend. On the legal aid point, I would like to hear the views of the Attorney-General. The information I have had up to now is that this kind of litigation cannot be undertaken by legal aid. However, may I point out to the Attorney-General the elasticity with which these pools are conducted? There is every opportunity for

dishonesty should the will to be dishonest arise. There should be some ruling body in this country to govern these pools, and although legislation may not be possible to make such a ruling body, the Racecourse Betting Control Board and Tattersall's are such a ruling body which is recognised throughout the country, as far as racing is concerned, and the sooner the football pools have a ruling body, the better.
If, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will bear with me for another couple of minutes, I will show you that by the rules which many of these pool promoters publish they can get out of paying on practically any pretext they like. That is not generally understood, and people would not go in for these pools if they thought they were not to be paid. Luckily most pools are honest and do pay, but there are occasions when they can struggle and get out of their liabilities, and this is one of the cases where they should either have prosecuted this man for being dishonest, if they thought so, or they should have paid him. What they say in so many words is that they can refuse to accept any coupon, whether it is correct or wrong, without assigning a reason——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now straying very wide of the point raised by his hon. and learned Friend.

Brigadier Clarke: I will try to get back to the narrow margin left me by my hon. and learned Friend. I have little more to say except to ask the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary to look into these pools to see if he can do something to bung up these loopholes.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: I think the House has been interested in the racy speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) and we all congratulate him because, in spite of the handicaps which he has had to carry during the course of his speech—and that is no reflection upon you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—he at least managed to complete the course.
I want to draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to the position which appears to have arisen in the case of Mr. Carter, under the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949. My hon. and gallant Friend told the House that his


constituent had made application for legal aid through his solicitor, but that it had been refused. Can my hon. and gallant Friend tell the House on what basis the refusal came? The first Schedule to the Act makes it quite clear what proceedings can be the subject of legal aid and what cannot.
I need not elaborate in detail the various points of procedure, but it is clear that the proceedings in the Supreme Court of Judicature—which would include the case of Mr. Carter—are valid subjects for the receipt of legal aid. The only exempted proceedings are those wholly or partly in respect of defamation, breach of promise of marriage, seduction and various types of more technical matters with which I need not trouble the House.
Has my hon. and gallant Friend any idea why the Legal Aid committee refused Mr. Carter legal aid, because it is a most serious matter? There is an even more serious matter. That is, that in spite of the difficulties in the way of my hon. and gallant Friend putting over the more intimate details of Mr. Carter's case, it discloses a matter which requires some investigation by one of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether or not people who accept money from prospective investors upon these coupons are, in fact, conducting their business honestly.
Although it is not a question really for my right hon. and learned Friend to say here and now that this particular pool is conducted honestly or not, it seems a matter which falls within the responsibility of his Department, or that of the Home Secretary, to see that these things are done properly. If my hon. and gallant Friend has done nothing else, he has certainly concentrated the attention of the House on this rather important issue as it effects one individual. I think the whole House will congratulate him on seizing his opportunity and eventually bringing his horse home.

9.11 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The House is in some difficulty here, I feel, because when I made what I thought was a judicious intervention to help the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) when he was outlining his case, and when I suggested that this seemed to be a

matter which came within the jurisdiction of the Legal Aid Scheme, the response of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not too warm.
He took the line that this was certainly not the kind of case in which from his point of view the legal aid machinery should operate. I am fortified in what I propose to say by the subsequent remarks of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), because I can quite clearly recollect one case and it is probably within the recollection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in which there was a dispute about how the proceeds of a successful pool coupon should be distributed among members of a family. That case went to law and was decided in the High Court on a legal aid certificate.
It is true that the learned judge seemed to take rather the same view as the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Portsmouth, West, that it was an abuse of the process of the Legal Aid Scheme that such cases should come before the court financed at the expense of the taxpayer. For that reason he made some obiter dicta which had no relevance at all to the case. It is not, in my view, for a High Court judge to throw doubt on the manner in which these very worthy Legal Aid committees are conducting their functions.
I am quite prepared to accept without any question a decision by a Legal Aid committee that an applicant is a worthy applicant and that, therefore, his case ought to go before the court. It strikes me as rather unfair that in the case to which I have referred, and which is, in principle, on all fours with the case brought to our notice by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West, the right exercised by the applicant to take advantage of the benefit offered by the Legal Aid Scheme should be the subject of adverse strictures by the learned judge trying the case——

Mr. Hylton-Foster: On a point of order. Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in criticising a judicial officer in the performance of his judicial duties? The difficulty in my mind, and for which I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, is that, should he continue to do so, it may be necessary to make some answer on the circumstances which give rise to the comment.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the start of this discussion, but it is an old practice of this House that the actions of Her Majesty's judges should not be challenged in this House except upon a substantive Motion. No such Motion is before the House and the hon. and gallant Member should not pursue that line of speech.
The hon. and gallant Member has not referred to the particular judge in question, but no doubt from the particulars he has already given the learned judge might be identified, so I think that the hon. and gallant Member is open to objection on that score.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I had decided to abandon that particular point, and I shall not pursue that aspect of the matter any further.
The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West did not give us the details as fully as he might have done, and I find myself in this difficulty. It was not possible to gather from what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said whether, on the coupons which the particular individual had filled up, both the names of the horses and jockeys had to be specified.

Brigadier Clarke: One only has to put down numbers. They give you about 50 jockeys, which are numbered from 1 to 50, and one has to write in numbers 7, 9, 10 and 15, or whatever one chooses.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: That makes the case put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman stronger. In fact, it is stronger now than I thought it was when he introduced the subject to the House, and I am more inclined to support him in the gallant plea which he is making on behalf of one of his constituents. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not say how much——

Mr. Speaker: I find this discussion rather puzzling. It is usual, and in accordance with the practice of the House, that questions raised on the Motion for the Adjournment should have some relevance to the responsibilities of the Government or to some Ministers thereof, and I cannot see how all this comes into the responsibilities of Ministers at all.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: On a point of order. I ventured to intervene on a point of order when you, Mr. Speaker, were not in the Chair. The matter had been

discussed on the basis that, as I understand it the Law Officers of the Crown are responsible for the proper administration of the Legal Aid and Advice Act. One of the grounds on which a certificate for legal aid might properly be refused would be that the applicant had no reasonable basis for his claim. It was in these circumstances that it was submitted that we might properly discuss whether or not he had a reasonable basis for his claim.

Mr. Speaker: That may be true, but it does not lay the whole matter open to a discussion of football pools.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If I might clarify the situation, the discussion arose on the case of a constituent of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West, who had a claim against a football pool promoter which, in my view, could have been dealt with, or, perhaps, should have been dealt with under the Legal Aid Scheme, for the administration of which the right hon. and learned Attorney-General is responsible to this House. In my submission, that completes the chain of causality and relevance which brings the matter within the rules of order of this debate.
In conclusion, I want to say that the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West, in mentioning this case of a constituent to the House tonight, has properly drawn attention to the adequacy or inadequacy of the Legal Aid Scheme, which secured the approval of this House in 1949, and in the administration of which all of us, as hon. Members of this House, are, I am sure, keenly interested.

9.19 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): If I may respectfully say so, Mr. Speaker, I share your puzzlement about this difficult matter. I am here this evening only because I was asked to sit here and listen to the discussion and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had already left for an important engagement before my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) gave notice that he was going to raise anything at all on the Motion for the Adjournment. When he did give that notice, he gave notice that it was a matter for the Home Secretary's Department, and I was a little surprised to find that we have arrived at


the point at which the matter is directed at the Law Officers of the Crown. I am therefore wondering whether this is the same Adjournment debate or another one.
However, in view of the matters raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) I feel that the less I say this evening the better, because it might be that something he has said may give rise to a question which will have to be investigated by me. On the other hand, it may be that it is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I am not quite sure that any of us quite knows what it is all about, and, therefore, I feel the best thing I can do, and the way in which I can assist best, is by confining myself to a matter about which I know something, and that is in relation to legal aid.
As I understand it, it is suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend that someone who has a deserving case has been refused legal aid. Quite apart from any humorous side of the matter, and quite apart from the interesting information and the good advice which my hon. and gallant Friend has given us in matters from which all of us might profit in one way or another, it is rather a serious matter if it is suggested that the Legal Aid Scheme is in some way being mal-administered. I am quite sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), who I know has been closely concerned with these matters, had that in mind, and it would be a pity if the conclusion were drawn that the

scheme was not being properly administered.
I would be only too pleased myself to inquire into this particular case, or to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to do so, to see what the explanation is. I feel that is really the most I can be asked to do. On the face of it, it certainly seems that it is a case which did not come within the Section of the Act dealing with seduction, or any of the other matters referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. Therefore, if he will allow me to report this interesting discussion and his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary I shall be pleased to do so.

Brigadier Clarke: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if I may send him the name and address of my constituent? I did not raise the point about seduction or abduction; they are things about which I know nothing.

The Attorney-General: I should have to ask for a little more information than that, because if my hon. and gallant Friend wants me to investigate the matter I should want him to be specific about the charges made, if any are made, as I would not like anyone to think because a matter of this kind has been raised in a casual way in this House this evening, that anything has been proved against anyone.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes past Nine o'Clock.